WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2428/98 by Ben FAYOT to the Commission. Alternatives to animal experiments
Date: 1998-07-30
Institutions: European Parliament, FAYOT
Subjects: EC Directive, OECD, animal experimentation, biotechnology, consumer protection, cosmetic product

C 182/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

(1999/C 182/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/98

by Maartje van Putten (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Construction of a dam on the Ems German-Dutch border river having regard to the Habitats and Birds

Directives

Having regard to the intention of the German authorities, in particular the Weser-Ems regional government
and the Lower Saxony land government, to build a dam on the Ems river; having regard to Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive and Article 4 of the Birds Directive; having regard to the conclusions reached by the
Netherlands Commission for environmental impact assessment to the effect that the assessment carried out by
the German authorities did not provide sufficient information to enable the project’s possible impact on the
area’s natural features to be assessed.

1. Has the Commission been in contact with the German authorities concerned, and if so on what basis?

2. How does the Commission view the German plans for building a dam, having regard to Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive and Article 4 of the Birds Directive, and in particular to the fact that the German
authorities failed to investigate any alternatives to this project, which would appear to be a requirement in
accordance with Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive?

3. What further action will the Commission take in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 1998)

The Commission has been informed of the planned building. In view of several complaints referring to this
plan the Commission has already contacted the German government.

The information sent by the complainants indicated to the Commission that an infringement of European law
could not be excluded. This is due to the fact that the planned measures seem to affect on the German side one
special protection area (SPA) directly and 3 SPA indirectly as well as on the Dutch side one SPA indirectly.
Moreover, based on these documents it cannot be excluded that necessary alternative solutions as well as
assessment of the implication in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) have not been
carried out.

A decision on further action will be taken after receiving the information requested from the German
government.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(1999/C 182/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2428/98

by Ben Fayot (PSE) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Alternatives to animal experiments

Under the terms of Directive 93/35/EEC (1), the ban on animal experiments for the purpose of testing cosmetic
products should have come into effect on 1 January 1998. However, to date neither the Member States nor the
Commission have made any serious efforts to develop and test alternatives to animal experimentation. As a
result the ban in question has been postponed to 1 June 2000, although there is absolutely no question that
there are ways of testing products without resorting to experiments on animals.