WRITTEN QUESTION P-2090/99 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Appointment of a Union special representative for Tibet.
Date: 1999-11-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tibetan question, common foreign and security policy, diplomatic profession, international human rights law, international negotiations, political prisoner

C 203 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

Article 3 (1) of the Directive states (cid:145)A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be
regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the
parties(cid:146) rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer(cid:146). Moreover, the
Annex to this Directive contains an indicative and non exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded
as unfair.

The Directive has been implemented in Italy and is now incorporated in national legislation. Therefore, the
application of the Directive in Italy is a matter for the national courts there. These courts may refer, if
necessary, to the European Court, for guidance in this context.

Hence, it seems appropriate for citizens to obtain specific legal advice in Italy or to submit this case to the
relevant national authorities there.

(2000/C 203 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2090/99

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Appointment of a Union special representative for Tibet

(8 November 1999)

The Commission is surely aware of Parliament(cid:146)s resolutions of 13 July 1995 (1), 15 January 1998 (2), and
14 May 1998 (3) on the situation in Tibet.

In addition to condemning the illegal Chinese invasion and occupation of Tibet, the resolutions explicitly
call on the Council and Commission to appoint an EU special representative for Tibet, who would be
(cid:145)responsible for doing everything possible to carry out the Union(cid:146)s demands as regards the civil and
political rights situation in Tibet(cid:146).

Parliament, the Commission, and numerous European Prime Ministers have assured the Dalai Lama that
they care about the human and civil rights situation in Tibet and wish to see genuine negotiations opened
between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, with no preconditions on either side.

Furthermore, Parliament has repeatedly asked for news of the world(cid:146)s youngest political prisoner, Gedhun
Choeky Nyima, the 10-year-old Tibetan boy abducted by the Chinese authorities at the age of 6 after the
Dalai Lama had recognised him to be the latest reincarnation of Tibet(cid:146)s second most important spiritual
leader, the Panchen Lama.

1. Will the Commission take the practical policy step of appointing a Union special representative for
Tibet?

2. Will the Union act on the promises made to the Dalai Lama as regards the human rights situation in
Tibet and the opening of genuine negotiations between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities?

Can the Commission exert pressure on the Chinese authorities

3.
Gedhun Choeky Nyima, Nawang Chophel, and Nawang Sandrol, now being held as political prisoners?

to secure the release of

(1) OJ C 249, 25.9.1995, p. 162.
(2) OJ C 34, 2.2.1998, p. 169.
(3) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 223.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 1999)

The issue of Tibet has been one of the most pressing issues in the Commission(cid:146)s political dialogue and
dialogue on human rights with China. The EU has taken a constructive and consistent approach to the
matter, which has involved calling insistently for the cultural,
linguistic and religious identity of the
Tibetan people to be respected. Furthermore, the Union also regularly calls for the reopening of a direct

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/133

dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities. The Commission for its part remains
determined to promote cooperation projects of direct benefit to the local population in Tibet. The situation
of Tibetan political prisoners has also been brought up by the Commission on a number of occasions,
most notably at the last meeting of the EU-China dialogue on human rights in Beijing on 19 October.

The Commission believes that this approach to the Tibetan problem is the most appropriate one at
present.

(2000/C 203 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2091/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Reports concerning the carcinogenic risks of Roundup

Is the Commission aware that a press report (in the Berliner Zeitung) indicates that the Commission

1.
has been given evidence that Monsanto(cid:146)s genetically engineered Roundup causes cancer?

Can the Commission provide evidence that Roundup poses no risks to humans, animals or the

2.
environment?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Glyphosate, the active substance contained in the plant protection product Round-up, is currently under
evaluation in the framework of the first review programme of existing active substances undertaken under
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/2 of 11 December 1992 laying down the detailed rules for the
implementation of the first stage of the programme of work referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive
91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). The draft evaluation
report on glyphosate was submitted by the rapporteur Member State, Germany, on 1 February 1999 to the
Commission and the Member States.

According to the usual procedures provided in Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 the draft report was
immediately forwarded for expert consultation (peer review) with specialised experts from five Member
States to examine in detail the draft report in all areas of human health and environmental safety (physico-
chemical properties, toxicology, residues, ecotoxicology, fate and behaviour in the environment).

Notifiers were informed that certain data were necessary to finalise the risk assessment. In particular when
during the evaluation laboratory studies raise concerns, notifiers have to provide evidence that such
concerns do not appear under appropriate field conditions. For glyphosate most of this information should
be available within the coming months.

Final results from the peer review will be discussed with the 15 Member States within the framework of
the standing committee on plant health. Before a decision is taken by the Commission, the scientific
committee on plants will be consulted.

In any case, as provided in Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (2), the Commission will only include glyphosate in Annex I to the
Directive if it has been demonstrated that there are no harmful effects on human or animal health or on
groundwater or any unacceptable influence on the environment.

(1) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992.
(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.