WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3965/98 by John IVERSEN Zoonosis directive
Date: 1999-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, IVERSEN
Subjects: EC Directive, animal disease, animal health, health legislation, infectious disease, national implementing measure, public health, veterinary legislation

29.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 341/23

The Commission can confirm that aid for modernisation must not run counter to resource conservation
targets. Use of more selective gear and fishing methods is one of the essential eligibility criteria for Community
aid.

Regulation of resource exploitation by means of TACs and catch quotas or restrictions on individual fishing
grounds limits the overexploitation of stocks while favouring responsible fishing. Each Member State remains
free moreover to set internal allocation rules and can gear them to maximum respect for resources and the
environment.

Any infringement of these provisions of Community law is liable to result in penalisation under Article 169 of
the Treaty. The Commission has moreover recently adopted a proposal (2) for a Council Regulation listing
types of behaviour, including overfishing, that seriously infringe CFP rules. While this Regulation may not lead
to Community-wide harmonisation of penalties imposed, it will result in greater transparency as regards
enforcement of CFP rules.

Project synopses. Volume VI: Fisheries & aquaculture (FAIR: 1994-1998).

(1)
(2) COM(99) 70 final.

(1999/C 341/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3965/98

by John Iversen (PSE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Zoonosis directive

In its answer to my Question H-0943/98 (1) on the zoonosis directive, the Commission concedes that the
directive has been implemented inadequately in the Member States and that the zoonosis reporting system
could be improved significantly.

It is therefore hard to see why the Commission wishes to submit a proposal designed to give it extra time to
consider what should be done. That is not reasonable. The Commission has a duty to ensure that EU rules are
implemented, and failure on the part of Member States to implement the zoonosis directive properly should
immediately result in the Commission taking action against them.

Does the Commission not take the view that public health considerations mean that the zoonosis directive
must be implemented without further delay?

(1) Verbatim report of proceedings (November 1998).

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 1999)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answers to Written Questions E-3175/98 (1) and
E-3865/98 from Mrs Riis Jørgensen (2).

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999.

(1999/C 341/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3976/98

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: Storage of nuclear waste from the reactor in Petten (Netherlands)

There have been articles in the Dutch press recently (Volkskrant of 3 and 5 December 1998) on the problems
with the storage capacity of the high flux reactor in Petten; the articles contain new information on this
problem. Since the 1980s the United States have been calling for a switch to low-grade uranium because of the
interests expressed by terrorists in high-grade uranium. The Commission has not responded to this hitherto
because low-grade uranium does not provide sufficient neutron flux which is needed for the nuclear research