WRITTEN QUESTION P-0730/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission. Provisions in support of poultry breeders affected by avian influenza.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/99 What progress has the Commission made in dealing with this case, and what measures can it take? What penalties can the Commission impose if Sweden continues to apply Directives 85/337/EC and 97/ 11/EC on environmental impact assessments in an incorrect manner? (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997, p. 5. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (13 April 2000) In response to this complaint, the Commission is conducting an investigation in order to assess whether the relevant Community environmental legislation has been complied with. The investigation concerns the impact assessment allegations made by the complainant relating to the content of the environmental carried out and the information which has been provided to the public. As further information is required, the Commission has requested the observations of the Swedish authorities on this matter. The Commission has no competence to issue any sanctions against Member States for infringements of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. Without prejudging its assessment of the case in question, the Commission may open infringement proceedings against a Member State for violation of Community law (1). If a Member State does not take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of justice in such a case, the Commission shall after giving that Member State the opportunity to submit its observations, issue a reasoned opinion specifying the points on which the Member State concerned has not complied with the judgment. If the Member State fails to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the case before the Court again. In so doing, it shall specify the amount of the lump sum or penalty payment to be paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court finds that the Member State has not complied with its judgment it may impose a lump sum or penalty payment (2). (1) Article 226 EC Treaty (ex-Article 169). (2) Article 228 EC Treaty (ex-Article 171). (2001/C 26 E/119) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0730/00 by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission (6 March 2000) Subject: Provisions in support of poultry breeders affected by avian influenza In December 1999 poultry farms in a number of regions of Italy, including Lombardy, Friuli, Sardinia, Emilia Romagna and, in particular, the Veneto, were hit by the spread of áavian influenzaí. In compliance with Italian and Community legislation there was an immediate response to the European Reference Centreís announcement that the virus was particularly virulent and measures were adopted to contain and eradicate the epidemic. This resulted in the destruction of all birds on the infected farms and the demarcation of protection and surveillance areas. It is estimated that avian influenza has led to the deaths of more than 5 million chickens and laying hens, which is having enormous repercussions, both social and economic. The damage has affected not only the infected farms, which have lost income for every bird killed, but has involved the whole poultry sector, with negative repercussions on exports to international markets. C 26 E/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 During the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 24 January last, the Italian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry explained to the other ministers the problems the disease is causing the farms involved. The meeting also offered an opportunity to consider a number of measures aimed at compensating producers for the indirect damage caused by the epidemic. The Italian Minister Mr De Castro therefore asked Commissioner Fischler to launch the procedure for drawing up support measures for the Italian market in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 (1). Can the Commission therefore say what stage has been reached in the procedure, what measures will be adopted to compensate the producers so adversely affected and by what deadline they will be implemen- ted, in view of the urgent need to respond to the poultry sectorís problems? (1) OJ L 282, 1. 11. 1975, p. 77. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 April 2000) The Commission is following with concern the evolution of avian influenza in Italy. From mid December 1999 until 3 March 2000, more than 15 million birds were lost due to this epidemic and in the most affected areas in Northern Italy a policy of complete stamping out is now being followed. Regarding exceptional market support measures in addition to measures taken in conformity with Community veterinary legislation, the Commission undertook to make an economic assessment on the basis of detailed information to be supplied by the Italian ministry of Agriculture. This assessment is necessary since Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) no 2771/75 on the common organisa- tion of the market in poultrymeat provides that exceptional measures ámay be taken only to the extent that and for such period as is strictly necessary for the support of that marketí. By 9 March 2000 the detailed information requested had not been made available. The evaluation procedure which has to take account of the above mentioned stamping out policy could therefore not have been started by that date. (2001/C 26 E/120) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0737/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission (17 March 2000) Subject: Removal of postal subsidies for Christian publications in Southern India In the first two weeks of January this year, over 100 Christian publications in Southern India had their postal subsidies removed on the grounds that the information which they are disseminating does not cover political or current affairs and therefore does not constitute news. As a result of this action, many of these publications, some of which have existed for thirty years with no previous problems of this kind, are at risk of closing down permanently. In the light of the ongoing climate of hostility towards the Christian community in India and the spate of recent legislative initiatives to clamp down on their practice and witness, there are reasonable grounds to believe that this latest step may be a deliberate attempt to curtail their freedom of expression. Will the Commission seek to establish whether this move constitutes discrimination on religious grounds and, if so, raise this matter with the Indian Government?