WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3933/97 by Sören WIBE to the Commission. Incorrect veterinary certificates
16. 6. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187/95 (98/C 187/143) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3933/97 by So¤ren Wibe (PSE) to the Commission (4 December 1997) Subject: Incorrect veterinary certificates The Swedish National Food Administration has analysed 569 consignments of meat imported from EU Member States, 75% of which were covered by veterinary certificates stating the meat to be salmonella-free. Samples were taken from 57 of the consignments covered by veterinary certificates, and twelve of them were found to be infected with salmonella, including seven out of the eight sampled consignments from France. It is a minimum requirement that veterinary certificates issued in a Member State should be correct. In a debate on 19 November 1997, the Council asked the Commission for action to be taken on this matter. Can a Member State introduce routine checks on consignments of meat from other Member States if serious errors such as those referred to above are occurring? Can Sweden take steps to restrict the free movement of foodstuffs so as to protect the Swedish public against infection with salmonella? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (19 January 1998) With regard to intra-Community trade in products of animal origin such as fresh meat, checks at origin, checks on arrival at destination and action to be taken if products fail checks are regulated by Directive 89/662/EEC concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (1). Checks at origin are regulated by Article 3 of the Directive. This article specifies that Member States must ensure that only products which have been obtained and checked in accordance with Community rules for the destination in question are intended for trade. In that respect, the requirements laid down for fresh meat deliveries to Sweden were indeed integrated into Community legislation by the Treaty of Accession. Checks at destination are regulated by Articles 5 to 8 of the Directive. Article 5(1)(a) sets out the principle that those checks are to be carried out by non-discriminatory spot-check. Article 7(1)(b) sets out what must happen to products when they do not fulfil the requirements set by Community legislation and in particular requires authorisation from the Member State of origin for their return. In addition, Article 8 in this case obliges the Member State of destination to contact the competent authorities of the Member State of dispatch without delay. If the Member State of destination fears that such measures are inadequate, it must try together with the Member State of dispatch to find ways and means of remedying the situation, if appropriate by means of an on-the-spot inspection. If the above measures fail, Article 8 states that the Member State of destination must inform the Commission which can then initiate an inquiry. It is the responsibility of the Swedish authorities to implement the procedures described above. With regard to the matter raised by the Honourable Member, namely the discovery in Sweden of carcasses infected with salmonella despite guarantees from the consignors in the form of special certificates, it is difficult for the Commission to adopt a final position at the moment since there may be various reasons for this situation, such as deficiencies in checks at origin, contamination during transport and handling or incompatibility between the inspection methods. Under the conditions of the internal market the Commission believes that it is important to implement the checks provided for by Community law before the adoption of unilateral measures by a Member State. This rule also applies to protection against salmonella. (1) OJ L 395, 30. 12. 1989