WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/00 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Case of the unmarked oxen in Sweden.
Date: 2000-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cross-frontier data flow, data protection, electronic commerce, national implementing measure, personal data, single market, trade restriction, type of business

C 219 E/188

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Will the Commission ensure that funding for approved projects may not be withheld simply because the
Commission believes it has outstanding claims against other projects when no legal proceedings have
begun to enforce its claim?

These questions relate to the Commission(cid:146)s behaviour in the case against the (cid:145)Nordvestjysk Folkecenter for
Vedvarende Energi(cid:146) (North-West Jutland Renewable Energy Centre), which was publicly branded a fraud by
a Commission official although the fraud squad in Denmark had concluded that there is no evidence for
the accusations.

The Commission has also blocked payments of a subsidy to a group of recipients, among which the Centre
is only one party, and is thus punishing undertakings having absolutely no involvement in this case.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 219 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Subject: National data protection laws

Is the Commission aware that, owing to disparities in national
the 1995 Data
Protection Directive, national data protection laws are prejudicing cross-border trade, and that this will
have considerable impact on the development of e-commerce within the EU?

implementation of

What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the extension of data protection laws to cover not only personal data, as
envisaged by the Directive, but also the processing of corporate data?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-2436/99 by
Mrs Wallis (1).

(1)

See page 161.

(2000/C 219 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0306/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Case of the unmarked oxen in Sweden

Per and P(cid:229)l are two oxen for which the Swedish Board of Agriculture has refused exemption from the
requirement that cattle must have plastic tags fitted to their ears.

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/189

The owners are willing to tattoo their oxen(cid:146)s ears but they consider that, as the oxen are genuine cultural
exhibits of living Swedish agricultural history (cid:129) which the local museum and folklore centre affirm (cid:129)
having plastic tags in their ears is both historically and ethically incorrect when the pair are representing
agriculture in a bygone age on a museum holding in a nature reserve in Sweden. There are only three pairs
of oxen with horns in Sweden and the owners maintain that it should therefore be possible to distinguish
them from others in any case.

What view does the Commission take? Does it consider that an exemption can be granted?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to Oral Question H-136/00 by
Mr Sch(cid:246)rling during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s February 2000 part-session (1).

(1) Debates of the Parliament (February 2000).