WRITTEN QUESTION P-1971/99 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Infringement of Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC.
20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/133 In view of this, can the Council answer the following questions: 1. Has the above-mentioned problem been discussed within the EU Council of Ministers? 2. Approximately how many people from central and eastern European countries are granted six-month Schengen visas both in Austria in particular and in the EU as a whole? 3. What measures does the Council consider to be appropriate to curtail detrimental both to the labour market and to competition in the Union? this practice which is 4. Has the Council investigated this matter? 5. Does the Council consider that this practice is compatible with EU competition law? 6. 7. If not, what measures does the Council intend to take to curtail this practice? If so, how does the Council justify its position? Reply (9 December 1999) The Council is not aware of the practices mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Council would draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the fact that, for the purposes of the Schengen Convention, a visa for a stay of more than three months is a national visa issued by each Contracting Party in accordance with its own legislation. (2000/C 170 E/161) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1971/99 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission Subject: Infringement of Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC (19 October 1999) In June 1998 the Netherlands Association for the Protection of Animals (Nederlandse Vereniging tot Bescherming van Dieren) carried out a detailed investigation into compliance with European Directives 91/0628/EEC (1) and 95/0029/EEC (2) at the Italian border posts at Gorizia, Fernetti and Prosecco. It emerged from this investigation, which is supported by documentary evidence, that the directives were being flagrantly violated and the animals concerned appallingly ill-treated. It is clear from the fact that video recordings of similar incidents were made in the same places in 1994 and 1995 that this was not a one-off occurrence. Does the Commission agree that Directives 91/0628/EEC and 95/0029/EEC are being most 1. inadequately implemented at Italyís border posts? 2. What is the Italian Government doing to put an end to this scandalous state of affairs? Is sufficient use being made of the possibilities offered by the Directives of withdrawing benefits and 3. imposing penalties? 4. What is the ultimate sanction that can be used against the Italian Government if it fails to take appropriate steps to exercise controls over the implementation of the directives? 5. What steps does the Commission, in its capacity as guardian of the Treaties, propose to take? (1) OJ L 340, 11. 12. 1991, p. 17. (2) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 52. C 170 E/134 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (9 November 1999) The Commission is aware of the problems in relation to animal welfare at the frontier posts 1. concerned. Several veterinary inspection missions of the Commissionís food and veterinary office (FVO) have been carried out in Gorizia and Prosecco. Following the missions, detailed recommendations were submitted to the Italian authorities and some improvements were noted. Unfortunately the recent complaints indicate that those improvements may not have been permanent. 2. According to the Italian authorities the number of official vets at the posts concerned has been increased and training courses on good animal welfare practices for staff and workers at the posts have been held. 3. The Commission does not consider sufficient use is being made of the possibilities offered by the directives. However, because Council Directive 95/0029/EC of 29 June 1995 amending Directive 91/0628/ EEC concerning the protection of animals during transport, does not apply outside the territory of the Community, legal difficulties do exist in enforcing the national legislation transposing these texts where the neglect or mistreatment of the animals occurred before they reach the Italian frontier. 4. If infringement proceedings are brought against a Member State by the Commission, and the Court of justice subsequently finds that the Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, and the Member State concerned fails to comply with the judgement, the Commission may open a second case under Article 228 (2) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 171) and request that a lump sum or penalty be paid by the Member State concerned. If the Court of justice finds that the Member State has not complied with its judgement, it may impose such a payment, the maximum amount of which is not specified in the EC Treaty. Furthermore, Commission Regulation (EC) 0615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed application rules for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (1) make conditional the granting of the export refund on the satisfactory implementation of the provisions of Directive 91/0628/EEC. Accordingly there is a direct consequence on the financing, by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF), of the refunds in cases where substantial breaches of the animal welfare conditions are noted. 5. The Commission is reviewing the matter in the light of a recent FVO report and further evidence supplied by animal welfare groups with a view to possibly opening proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) EC Treaty. The Commission also intends to give further attention to the possibility of conclusion of bilateral agreements with the third countries concerned as a means of overcoming the problems of enforceability mentioned above. The findings of the inspections on the spot carried out by the Commission have to be assessed in respect of the refund granted for bovine animals exported via the border inspection post concerned. (1) OJ L 82, 19. 3. 1998. (2000/C 170 E/162) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/99 by Norbert Glante (PSE)to the Commission (28 October 1999) Subject: Commission measures to prepare a decision on price-fixing for books In its resolution (B4-0991/98) of 20 November 1998 on common book price-fixing across borders (1), the European Parliament made the following decisions, inter alia: 2. Calls on the Commission, before a final decision is taken concerning the procedures outstanding, to establish reliable and comparable indicators and information on the overall situation and the situation in sections of the book markets in individual Member States and language areas of the EU;