# CE2004084EN.01016902.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/169 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/169

---

(2004/C 84 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject:   Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

Subject:

The security mechanisms employed in the EU institutions have failed to detect the letter bombs sent to senior officials over the last few weeks.

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks. Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials' desks without being inspected by a real professional in this sphere — a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

| — | Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions? |
| --- | --- |

—

Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions?

| — | Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives?

| — | Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in particular when it comes to checking items of mail? |
| --- | --- |

—

Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in particular when it comes to checking items of mail?

| — | Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home? |
| --- | --- |

—

Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other Institutions. The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.

---