WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Hallmarking.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, harmonisation of standards, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, marketing standard, precious metal, quality label, single market

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/193

As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the above
procedure has resulted in a final decision. The Commission will make known its position as soon as
possible in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure.

(1) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998.

(2000/C 330 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting

(3 March 2000)

The Germersheim campus of the University of Mainz (Germany) has a teaching programme which includes
a very useful training course for interpreters from and into various European languages. Despite the fact
that there are several dozen students studying interpreting from and into Greek, I am informed that the
university plans to discontinue the teaching of interpreting from and into this language. At the same time,
I am told that the university receives funding from the European Union precisely to support the teaching
of interpreting.

In the light of this information, could the Commission say what plans the University of Mainz has with
regard to the teaching of interpreting from and into Greek?

Since there does not seem to be any good reason for its abolition, could the Commission request the
University of Mainz or its supervisory authority to maintain the teaching of this language, which is
particularly useful for the operation of Community bodies and many other European organisations and
undertakings?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honorable Member(cid:146)s comments on the importance of Greek as an official
Community language. In the field of interpreting, the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service is making
the utmost effort to guarantee multilingualism and the equal dignity of all the languages. Nevertheless, the
Commission cannot take the place of national authorities when it comes to the training of interpreters.

In fact, in keeping with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of the education it
provides and for the way in which its education system is organised. The decision to discontinue the
teaching of interpreting in Greek is therefore the responsibility of the university authorities and ultimately
of the Member State concerned.

Finally, it would appear in the present case that the information received by the Honorable Member does
not entirely reflect the situation as it stands. The University of Mainz has in fact confirmed that Greek is
not and never has been one of the languages in the syllabus for the training of interpreters. Moreover, the
Commission does not contribute financially to the interpreter training programme at this university.

(2000/C 330 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Hallmarking

Further to Answer H-0729/99 (1) to my previous question about the hallmarking of silver, will the
Commission use its best endeavours to facilitate an in-depth discussion to take place in the Council(cid:146)s

C 330 E/194

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

working group concerning the Council(cid:146)s proposal for the (cid:145)E(cid:146) and (cid:145)e(cid:146) distinction between manufacturer-
marked and third party marked silver articles, and so enable agreement to be reached to a directive which
will finally inaugurate a single market in silver articles?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999).

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission agrees with the suggestion by the Honourable Member to distinguish between (cid:145)E(cid:146) and (cid:145)e(cid:146)
marking. It will endeavour to facilitate the in-depth discussion in the next Council working group and so
to enable agreement about the hallmarking Directive to be reached.

(2000/C 330 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)

(3 March 2000)

Following a vaccination-related accident in the Netherlands in the spring of 1999, the Commission rightly
decided to put a temporary ban on the vaccines (cid:145)Bayovac IBR marker vivum(cid:146) and (cid:145)attenuated Rhinobovin
marker(cid:146) until the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) could carry out the necessary
scientific tests and make a final decision. However, in the absence of proof of adverse effects, it did not ban
the vaccines (cid:145)Bayovac IBR marker inactivatum(cid:146) and (cid:145)killed Rhinobovin marker(cid:146), which are officially
authorised in all EU Member States, except for Italy.

1.
Does the Commission not consider it would be advisable to speed up procedures in order to bring
the validation process for the live vaccines to an end, thereby providing assurance in the fight to eradicate
infectious bovine rhinotracheitis?

Does the Commission consider it necessary to ask Italy to lift its ban on marketing authorisation for

2.
Bayer(cid:146)s (cid:145)inactivatum(cid:146) vaccine and Hoechst(cid:146)s (cid:145)killed(cid:146) vaccine?

3.
Does it consider this isolation, decreed by the Italian Ministry of Health, to be justified when the said
Ministry is granting exemptions from the ban and is allowing the (cid:145)inactivatum(cid:146) vaccine, purchased in
France, to be given to Italian cattle due to take part in a European event (Friesian cattle show) in Brussels
on 11, 12 and 13 February?

4. Whilst respecting the fundamental need for scientific testing, does the Commission not think that any
procrastination might help to exacerbate the economic losses of Italian breeders brought about by the
delay in efforts to eradicate IBR?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

1., 2. and 4.
As a result of cases of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) occurring in cattle vaccinated with the
nationally authorised veterinary medicinal product Bayovac (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)) marker
vivum in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom presented to the European Agency for the Evaluation of
Medicinal Products (EMEA) a Community referral under Article 23a of Council Directive 81/851/EEC (1).
At that time the marketing authorisation holders informed the EMEA that Bayovac IBR marker vivum and
Rhinobovin marker had been voluntarily withdrawn in all Community markets pending the outcome of
the Community referral. At no time was a temporary ban imposed by the Commission. However, the
national marketing authorisations were suspended by the Irish, Italian, Dutch and British authorities