do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2607/96 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Animal experiments
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: DURY, European Parliament
Subjects: animal experimentation, animal welfare, medical research, monkey, transport of animals













EUR-Lex - 91996E2607 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2607

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2607/96 by Raymonde DURY to the Commission. Animal experiments  


Official Journal C 072 , 07/03/1997 P. 0063 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2607/96 by Raymonde Dury (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Animal experimentsUnder Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1. )) on animals used for experimental purposes, experiments shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practically available.Thousands of primates are still being sent to Europe from Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Mauritius or Barbardos, 80% of which die before arrival. Invitro techniques which can be used to achieve the objective sought often exist but these are longer and more costly than the use of monkeys.Can the Commission say whether the arguments put forward by companies and scientists concerning the length of time and costs involved constitute an acceptable justification for exemptions to the above Directive?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (13 November 1996)Article 7(2) of Directive 86/609/EEC ((OJ L 358, 18.12.1996. )) states that an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.The use of primates is considered essential for biomedical research, and there are still insufficient suitable alternatives available.The Commission has no information about the mortality of the animals during transport and cannot therefore comment on the figure of 80% quoted by the Honourable Member.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2584/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Action taken pursuant to ECJ judgment of 18 June 1991 (ERT Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi)
Date: 1996-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, VERWAERDE
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, Greece, application of EU law, broadcasting, competence of the Member States, interpretation of the law, law relating to information, market access, television













EUR-Lex - 91996E2584 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E2584

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2584/96 by Yves VERWAERDE to the Commission. Action taken pursuant to ECJ judgment of 18 June 1991 (ERT Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi)  


Official Journal C 091 , 20/03/1997 P. 0015 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-2584/96 by Yves Verwaerde (PPE) to the Commission (11 October 1996)Subject: Action taken pursuant to ECJ judgment of 18 June 1991 (ERT Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi)Will the Commission state what action has been taken following the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 June 1991 in the ERT Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi case?Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission (13 December 1996)In April 1989 the Thessaloniki regional court referred to the Court of justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty several questions on the interpretation of the EC Treaty. The questions forwarded were raised in proceedings between Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi Anonimi Etairia ('ERT'), a Greek radio and television undertaking to which Greece had granted exclusive rights for carrying out its activities, and a local information company, which was in the process of setting up a television station.The Court of justice examined the questions in the light of Community law and gave its ruling on 18 June 1991. It is up to the national court to decide whether ERT activities are compatible with the ruling given by the Court of justice.The Honourable Member may inform himself at national level in Greece as to what action has been taken following the judgment of the Court. The Commission is not a party to the proceedings.