E. whereas not enough experienced laboratory staff are available at EU level to maintain the controls
pursuant to Directive 2003/126/EC,
F. whereas the European Court of Justice concluded in Case C-286/02 that it was the ban on the feeding
of animal meal to ruminants which has produced most results in combating TSEs,
G. whereas animal proteins do not form part of the natural nutrition of ruminants,
1. Considers that the feeding of fishmeal to ruminants is not consistent with the duty imposed on the
Community by Article 152(1) of the EC Treaty;
2. Considers that the power conferred on the Commission by Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001
does not permit a lowering of the level of public health protection;
3. Calls, therefore, on the Commission to withdraw its Draft Regulation amending Annex IV to Regu-
lation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards animal nutrition(SANCO/3027/2004);
4. Believes that for any other farmed animals which are kept, fattened or bred for the production of food,
any feedingstuff has to fall under strong scrutiny;
5. Calls for scientific analysis to determine acceptable limit values for dioxin in fishmeal for feeding pigs
and poultry;
6. Voices strong doubts that sufficient experienced laboratory staff are available within the Member States
of the European Union to maintain the controls regarding fishmeal pursuant to Directive 2003/126/EC;
7. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments
of the Member States.
P6_TA(2004)0044
EU-India relations
European Parliament recommendation to the Council on EU-India relations (2004/2195(INI))
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Glyn Ford on behalf of the PSE
Group on EU-India Relations (B6-0005/2004),
— having regard to the Communication from the Commission on an EU-India Strategic Partnership of
16 June 2004(COM(2004)0430),
— having regard to the 5th EU-India Summit, which was due to take place in The Hague on 14 October
2004, and will now take place on 8 November 2004,
— having regard to the most recent European Parliament-India Interparliamentary meeting, held in New
Delhi from 17-20 April 2002,
— having regard to Rules 114(3) and 90 of its Rules of Procedure,
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A6-0024/2004),
A. having regard to the geostrategic importance of India and its potential role in a multilateral world order,
and in particular its status as the world's largest multicultural democracy,
B. having regard to the significance of India, with its diversity of religions, cultures, ethnicities and lan-
guages and its importance to the dialogue among civilisations,14.7.2005 EN C 174 E/179 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 28 October 2004
C. having regard to India's emergence as the largest power in South Asia, with a key role in the dominant
regional multilateral organisations such as SAARC, ASEAN, GCC and CICA,
1. Recommends that the Council, at the 5th EU-India Summit, take the decision to upgrade the EU-India
relationship to a Strategic Partnership, in order to promote an effective multilateral approach, and that ittake the necessary practical steps; strongly supports closer ties between the EU and India and believes that
mutual respect and partnership find their best expression in open dialogue on all matters, including those
on which there are divergent views. To this end, the Council is asked to ensure that the following points aregiven particular attention:
1.1 Developing a strategic alliance with India for the promotion of an effective multilateral approach,
supporting peace, security, human rights and democracy and taking into account all aspects of bilat-eral relations in this partnership including the above-mentioned items;
1.2 While continuing to promote a strong trade relationship, also enhancing the relationship at other key
levels such as political, cultural, social;
1.3 Promoting a strong trade relationship and working with India to better understand the global econ-
omy and, more specifically, to understand the benefits for both economies with regard to outsourcingand insourcing-related matters;
1.4 Strengthening their co-operation on conflict prevention and post-conflict political and economic
reconstruction and rehabilitation, taking into account the positive role that regional integration playsin conflict prevention —all this to be done bilaterally and in UN fora;
1.5 Addressing global concerns such as non-proliferation and disarmament, terrorism and organised
crime; expanding the mandate of the EU-India Joint Working Group on Anti-Terrorism to coversecurity co-operation as a whole, focussing also on money laundering, cyber-terrorism and narco-
terrorism; mandating Europol to institutionalise cooperation with India, and supporting India's appli-
cation for ‘privileged country status ’with Europol;
1.6 Cooperating in the field of security policy, this being all the more urgent since the US has decided to
start exporting nuclear and other advanced technology to India again for the first time since 1998, theyear in which the US imposed sanctions against India after it had conducted a nuclear test;
1.7 Paying particular attention to the India-Pakistan dialogue, including the Kashmir issue; welcoming the
dialogue and hoping for a fruitful conclusion; and paying attention to the need to develop and securemutual trust and confidence between these two major countries;
1.8 Examining ways in which the European Union, with its significant experience of regional integration,
could promote regional co-operation in South East Asia through the SAARC;
1.9 Collating a list of all bilateral links (within the EU) with India, with the idea of integrating them in a
European framework with a view to identifying examples of best practice or areas where unnecessaryduplications or contradictions may exist;
1.10 Working with India to promote co-operation on global environmental challenges;
1.11 Developing a dialogue with India on cross-cutting issues such as good governance, environment,
industrial policy, competition issues, defence equipment, and strategic sectors such as the informationsociety, transport, energy, biotechnology and co-operation on space-related matters;
1.12 Supporting the continuing dialogue on organisational and institutional restructuring and reform of the
UN; co-ordinating positions in the preparation, negotiation and implementation of major multilateralconventions in the UN; such co-ordination could be implemented through joint regular meetingsbetween the EU and India missions to the UN;C 174 E/180 EN 14.7.2005 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 28 October 2004
1.13 Enhancing civil society contacts and two-way academic exchanges, and strengthening cultural relations,
specifically through the establishment of an EU-India Centre for Indian Studies; giving serious thoughtto the possibility of holding regular cultural weeks to coincide with future India-EU Summits;
1.14 Devising a strategy to improve the visibility of the EU in India and vice versa;
1.15 Supporting the European Parliament's endeavour to enhance contacts and discussions with the Indian
Parliament, including institutionalisation of regular meetings between the Lok Sabha and EuropeanParliament delegations;
2. Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the
Commission and to the Government and Parliament of India.
P6_TA(2004)0045
Result of the referendum and elections in Belarus
European Parliament resolution on the political situation in Belarus after the parliamentary elec-
tions and referendum of 17 October 2004
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Belarus, in particular its resolution of
16 September 2004 (1),
— having regard to the opinion on the referendum of 17 October 2004 in Belarus adopted by the 60th
Plenary Session of the Venice Commission on 8 and 9 October 2004,
— having regard, in particular, to its resolution of 24 October 1996 on the situation in Belarus (2), in
which it decided that no further steps would be taken towards ratification of the Partnership andCooperation Agreement with that country until clear signals had been given by the Belarussian auth-orities of their intention fully to respect basic democratic and human rights,
— having regard, in particular, to its resolution of 5 July 2001 on Belarus (
3), adopted prior to the 2001
presidential elections, and to the reports of the Parliamentary Troika (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly andEuropean Parliament) published after the 2000 general election (30 January 2001) and the 2001 presi-dential election (4 October 2001),
— having regard, in particular, to its resolution of 11 February 2003 on relations between the European
Union and Belarus: towards a future partnership (
4),
— having regard to the parliamentary elections and the constitutional referendum which took place in
Belarus on 17 October 2004,
— having regard to the statement of preliminary findings and conclusions by the International Election
Observation Mission for the parliamentary elections in Belarus,
— having regard to the declaration by the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the parliament-
ary elections and the referendum of 17 October 2004 in Belarus,
— having regard to the declaration by the Head of the OSCE Office in Minsk on the attacks on opposition
politicians in Minsk, which took place on 19 October 2004,
— having regard to the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004, which was signed by the President of the USA on
20 October 2004,
— having regard to Rule 103(4) of its Rules of Procedure,
(1) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2004)0011.
(2) OJ C 347, 18.11.1996, p. 168.
(3) OJ C 65 E, 14.3.2002, p. 373.
(4) OJ C 43 E, 19.2.2004, p. 60.14.7.2005 EN C 174 E/181 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 28 October 2004