WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2515/97 by Gerhard SCHMID to the Commission. Fact-finding visit to a meat processing plant
C 82/98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 17. 3. 98 On 2 July 1997 the Commission wrote to FIFA taking an essentially negative view of Section 1 of that Circular in relation to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Article 53 of the EEA Agreement) and of Section 2 in relation to Articles 48 and 85 of the EC Treaty. (98/C 82/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2515/97 by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission (22 July 1997) Subject: Fact-finding visit to a meat processing plant On a fact-finding visit to a meat processing plant in Oberpfalz, the visiting Commission official spoke only English. Because the owner of the plant had no knowledge of specialized technical English he was unable to follow the 12-hour (!) inspection. Is it normal for EU officials on fact-finding visits to meat processing plants in Member States not to speak 1. the local language? If so, why? 2. Why are interpreters not provided? Does the Commission consider it acceptable in such cases for plant owners not to be able to understand 3. what is being said about their plant? 4. Why are the reports following the visit sent only in English? 5. 6. Does the Commission believe that the owners themselves are responsible for translating the reports? Is such language discrimination compatible with the European treaties? Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission (3 October 1997) The Honourable Member presumably refers to the inspection visit to a meat product processing establishment in Oberpfalz performed by a Commission veterinary inspector from the Office of veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and control, in September 1995. Personnel employed in the Commission are required to have a thorough knowledge of one of the languages of the Community and a satisfactory knowledge of another. Every effort is made to ensure that inspectors who perform inspection missions in Member States have a working knowledge of the language of the Member State concerned. However, bearing in mind that there are 11 official languages used in the Community, and that the number of inspectors working in the Commission veterinary and phytosanitary inspection and control services is limited, this goal cannot always be achieved. In such circumstances, it is normal practice for interpretation facilities to be made available through agreement between the Member State and the Commission, so that the mission can be performed under the best conditions possible. Missions undertaken by the Commissionís veterinary services are intended to monitor the manner in which Member State authorities discharge their responsibilities under the relevant Community legislation. It is usual therefore for discussions on inspection findings to take place between the officials concerned. However, owners of individual establishments visited during the course of such missions are at liberty to raise the findings in respect of their own premises with their authorities after the inspection has been completed. Reports of mission findings are generally written in the language in which the inspector conducted the mission. This not only serves to ensure that the report accurately reflects the findings of the inspector, but also helps to minimise any delay in the submission of the report to the Member State authorities. It is for these authorities to decide on the manner in which owners of individual establishments inspected during the mission are informed of its findings