WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Directive 95/29/EC.
Date: 1999-09-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, transport of animals

C 203 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

1.

Is the authorisation under the directive in question to be considered as open-ended?

Should the structural requirements relating to the means of transport be checked and, if so, how

2.
often?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.
(2) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8.

(2000/C 203 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Directive 95/29/EC

Directive 95/29/EC (1) stipulates that, in the case of animals traded between Member States or exported to
third countries and where the journey time exceeds eight hours, the transporter must draw up a route
plan. Views seem to differ on whether a route plan is required in respect of transport exceeding eight
hours within one country.

Are transporters required to draw up route plans for journeys exceeding eight hours inside one country?

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1641/99, E-1642/99 and E-1643/99

(24 January 2000)

Directive 95/29/EC (1) amended the rules on the protection of animals during transport laid down in
Council Directive 91/628/EEC (2). Article 13(1) of the original Directive required the Commission to
submit a report, possibly accompanied by proposals, on maximum journey times, feeding and watering
intervals, resting periods, space allowances and the standards to be met by means of transport as regards
the transport of certain types of animal.

The second recital of Directive 95/29/EC states that (cid:145)the report from the Commission, based on an opinion
from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, shows that standards can be established on the abovementioned
matters in respect of certain types of animal, based on scientific knowledge and well established
experience(cid:146).

As clearly indicated in the fourth recital, the Council was guided by the objective (cid:145)of harmonising travelling
times and resting periods, feeding and watering intervals, and space allowances, for certain types of
animal(cid:146), to make it possible in the context of the internal market, (cid:145)to eliminate technical barriers to trade in
live animals and to allow the market organisations in question to operate smoothly, while ensuring a
satisfactory level of protection for the animals concerned(cid:146).

On the basis of these factors, the Council adopted in particular provisions:

(cid:129) with which the Member States must comply as regards the transport of domestic solipeds (Annex,

Chapter VII, point 4(c) of Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC);

(cid:129) with which all transporters wishing to transport animals must comply, including the requirements for
issuing an authorisation (Article 5 of Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC;
additional animal protection standards, applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock
on journeys exceeding eight hours, are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 411/98) (3);

(cid:129) relating more specifically to the drawing up of a route plan by the transporter to accompany the
for transport on

(in particular section A.2(b) of

the abovementioned Article 5,

consignment

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/15

Community territory, and Article 11(2) of Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC,
for imports from third countries).

Beyond the references to the legislation cited above, the Honourable Member will agree that is not the role
of the Council to interpret its own acts or to monitor their application by the Member States, these being
powers which the Treaty confers on the Court of Justice and the Commission respectively.

(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.
(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.
(3) OJ L 52, 21.2.1998, p. 8.

(2000/C 203 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/99

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: Programmes for the street children of Guatemala

Could the Commission provide an update on its programme of assistance for the street children of
Guatemala in the final two years of its operation?

Now that the programme has come to an end, how and through what funding channels will the
Commission continue to offer support to the street children of Guatemala?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 1999)

The programme of assistance for the street children of Guatemala ran from January 1996 to July 1999.
The purpose of the project was to see that children at risk socially in Guatemala were protected, respected
and kept safe.

For this purpose, Commission aid centred on three areas of intervention: offering protection and direct
assistance to street children to help reintegrate them into society; promoting prevention campaigns to stop
youngsters becoming street children, and institution-building among public bodies responsible for protect-
ing minors and applying child protection legislation.

On the first two points, the project team worked not just with the children but with their families and
communities to devise strategies to prevent children ending up on the streets or becoming delinquents.
Literacy and vocational training campaigns and income-generating schemes were set up and are still
running today.

On the third point, there were activities to promote child protection, for example by setting up a joint
database for the various bodies that deal with children in trouble with the law, to enable their cases to be
dealt with more effectively.

Campaigns have been run to encourage Guatemala to implement
the International Convention on
Protection of Children, which it ratified in 1989, pending the implementation of a new children(cid:146)s code
which has already been published with Community support. Additionally, there were projects to train staff
and to prepare the institutions concerned (the judiciary, the national children(cid:146)s agency and the secretariat
for social welfare).

The project was successful. The government agencies and also the non-governmental organisations
involved in it incorporated the running costs into their ordinary budgets, so that the project activities
could continue after the Community withdrew.

In view of the results, the Community proposes to devise a new project to support street children which
will carry on the prevention strategy put into place by the project which has just finished.