# CE2004084EN.01036401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/364 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/364

---

(2004/C 84 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0336/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject:   Embryo research financed from the EU budget

Subject:

| 1. | Why did the Commission, in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial agreement? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why did the Commission, in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial agreement?

| 2. | Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree?

| 3. | Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on 11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a Commissioner who thinks differently? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on 11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a Commissioner who thinks differently?

| 4. | In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to ethical questions? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to ethical questions?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

(1 March 2004)

| 1. | The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory nature which took place in the margins of the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory nature which took place in the margins of the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure.

| 2. | The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules.

| 3. | The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the Council's table. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the Council's table.

| 4. | This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union's competence to determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003, expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem cells from human embryos (1). |
| --- | --- |

4.

This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union's competence to determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003, expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem cells from human embryos (1).

1

---

(1)  http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CAL-DOC&HLE=20031119&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LAST-CHAP=12&SDOCTA=l0&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1

1

---