WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Research and testing using animals.
Date: 2000-02-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, animal experimentation

C 26 E/40

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

Progress can only be achieved gradually since it involves revising the financial regulation. Furthermore, as
the current
financial perspectives include a separate heading which regroups all the (cid:145)Administrative
expenditure(cid:146) of the different institutions (heading 5), a solution would need to be found at the interinstitu-
tional level.

2.
No particular (cid:145)subsidies disguised as contracts(cid:146) were brought to the Commission(cid:146)s attention by the
committee of independent experts. The committee were making the general point that they disagreed with
the Commission(cid:146)s distinction in its expenditure coding between a grant and a contract for procurement
spending on the grounds that, as most grants involved a quid pro quo, they too were in fact a kind of
contract. The Commission accepts that most grants do involve a quid pro quo and mutual obligations of a
contractual type, but not that they can therefore be assimilated to procurement spending, and so does not
accept the term (cid:145)false subsidy(cid:146).

The Commission has already laid down guidelines, within the framework of the vademecum on grant
management (1)
for differentiating between (cid:145)grants(cid:146) and
(cid:145)procurement spending(cid:146), with the same basic principles of transparency and equality of treatment applying
to both types of expenditure.

that came into force on 1 January 1999,

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/intro_funding.htm.

(2001/C 26 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 2000)

Subject: Research and testing using animals

What is the Commission(cid:146)s position with regard to research and testing live animals. What action is the
Commission taking to reduce such testing?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of animals used for experimental
and other scientific purposes (1) lays down the provisions to be followed when animals are used for
research and testing.

Concerning the Community research programmes, the 5th Framework Programme (Decision 182/1999/
EC) (2) states in Article 7 that (cid:145)All research activities conducted pursuant to the 5th Framework Programme
shall be carried out in compliance with fundamental ethical principles including animal welfare require-
ments, in conformity with Community law.(cid:146)

Under the programme (cid:145)Quality of Life and management of living resources(cid:146), the researchers must apply the
principles of replacement by alternative methods, reduction of the number of animals and refinement of
experiments. Animal suffering must be avoided or kept to a minimum. These principles must be applied
particularly rigorously to animal species that are the closest to human beings. A specific ethical review is
performed for all projects raising ethical issues, including those involving non-human primates.

The number of animals used for regulatory testing is approximately 9 % of the total number of animals
used in experiments. This can be deduced from the latest Commission report established in accordance
with Directive 86/609/EEC.
In order to reduce the number of animals for regulatory testing the
Commission promotes alternative testing methods requiring either fewer animals or no animals at all
(by using in vitro and computer-based methods).

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/41

In 1991, the Commission established a European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods
(ECVAM), which is a unit of the Institute for Health & Consumer Protection of the Commission(cid:146)s Joint
Research Centre,
Italy. ECVAM(cid:146)s principal duty is to co-ordinate the validation of
advanced, non-animal test methods at Union level, that is, to establish their relevance and reliability for
their stated purposes.

located at Ispra,

In February 2000, the Commission proposed the inclusion of the first three validated in vitro methods into
Annex V of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the classification, packaging and labelling
of dangerous substances (3). The Member States voted favourably.

These methods were validated as a part of ECVAM(cid:146)s work programme, in collaboration with laboratories
and other institutions in the Member States and the United States, and were endorsed as scientifically
validated by the ECVAM scientific advisory committee and accepted by the relevant Commission services.
It is anticipated that a further ten methods will be validated during the 5th Framework Programme (1999
(cid:129) 2002).

This is the first time ever that validated alternative methods have been included in Annex V. The
Commission attaches great importance to this work and is actively promoting the acceptance of these
methods into the OECD test guidelines programme, in order to secure their world-wide application.

(1) OJ L 117, 5.5.1987.
(2) OJ L 49, 29.2.1999.
(3) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.

(2001/C 26 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 February 2000)

Subject: Kosovo detainees in Serbia

On the occasion of a hunger strike (from 24 December 1999 to 6 January 2000) and a demonstration on
5 January 2000, both organised in Brussels by Kosovars from the Albanian World League to demand the
release of Kosovar detainees in Serbia, I was received on 5 January 2000 by an official on the staff of the
High-Ranking Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy and by the Portuguese Chairman-
ship of the European Union. Both bodies declared that they were prepared to arrange for the situation of
the Kosovar detainees to be placed on the agenda of the European Council of Ministers on 24-25 January.
A reading of the reports of proceedings indicates that this item was not discussed at the said Council.

I wish to ask the following questions:

1. How will the Council respond to the European Parliament resolution of 16 September 1999, in which
the Presidency is urged to hold direct talks with the Serbian government on releasing all political
prisoners?

2. When will the Council debate the situation of Kosovar Albanians detained in Serbia?

3.

4.

Is the Council prepared to table and support a resolution at the UN Security Council calling for the
release of Albanian detainees in Serbia? If not, why not?

Is the Council prepared to make the lifting of sanctions against Yugoslavia and Serbian participation in
implementing the Stability Pact for South-East Europe dependent on a solution to the problem of the
Albanian detainees? If not, why not?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council has taken note of the resolution of the European Parliament of 16 September 1999 to which
the Honourable Member refers. In current circumstances the Council is not in a position to have direct