WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/00 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission. Animal testing for cosmetics.
Date: 2000-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal experimentation, common commercial policy, cosmetic product, trade agreement, transfer of businesses

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/165

(2001/C 46 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/00

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Limited companies (cid:129) annual accounts on the Internet

In Austria it is compulsory for limited companies (GmbH) to publish in the Official Journal supplement to
the Wiener Zeitung a notification of submission of their annual accounts to the company accounts court.

An entry such as (cid:145)XY-GmbH has submitted its annual accounts to the company accounts court(cid:146) costs
ATS 1 500 annually, an amount that has to be paid into the company accounts court.

Since more than 8 000 small limited companies out of Upper Austria(cid:146)s total of 8 500 limited companies
are affected by this requirement, a distortion of competition might well be said to exist by comparison
with undertakings from other Member States.

Where does the Commission stand on this competitive disadvantage, and does the Commission not
consider that, instead of these notifications having to be published in the Official Journal supplement to
the Wiener Zeitung, it would be sufficient for them to be published free of charge on the Internet?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2000)

Article 3(4) of the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards
which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty, with a view to
making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (1) requires limited companies to disclose
certain documents and particulars related to the company (including the annual accounts) (cid:145)by publication
in the national gazette appointed for that purpose by the Member State(cid:146). In Austria, (cid:145)the national gazette
appointed for that purpose(cid:146) is the Official journal supplement to the Wiener Zeitung. This requirement to
publish affects limited companies in all Member States, therefore the requirement does not in itself
constitute a distortion of competition.

Following recommendations made by the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) working
group, which is composed of representatives of Member States and of the Commission, the Commission is
currently looking at ways of amending the First Directive to make use of technological advances. Although
Article 3(4), as it stands, does not prevent Member States from moving to modern forms of disclosure,
clarification is needed, particularly with regard to issues such as electronic filing and the use of the
Internet.

(1) OJ L 65, 14.3.1968.

(2001/C 46 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/00

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Animal testing for cosmetics

Referring to the Commission(cid:146)s statement dated 5 April (IP/00/335) regarding the adoption of a proposal to
amend Council Directive 76/768/EEC (1) on animal testing for cosmetics, does the Commission agree that
this proposal is likely to lead to the cruel testing being exported from the EU and the products of that
cruelty subsequently being imported for sale, and will the Commission also state the number of contacts
that it has had with the industry and with the World Trade Organisation in respect of this proposed
change of policy?

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169.

C 46 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2000)

The Commission does not aim to increase cruelty towards animals. On the contrary, the Commission is
continuing its efforts to reduce the suffering inflicted on animals during testing, cut down on the number
of tests, and, as far as possible and within the shortest feasible timescale, eliminate animal suffering, an aim
also found in Directive 86/609/EEC regarding the protection of animals used for experimental and other
scientific purposes (1).

The Commission took this objective into account when drawing up its proposed seventh amendment. It
does, in fact, propose to introduce a definitive ban in Europe on carrying out animal testing for both
finished cosmetic products and the ingredients used for these. In addition, since the key to solving this
problem is to perfect methods which substitute animal testing, the Commission is continuing its efforts to
develop alternative methods, making it compulsory to use these once they have been scientifically
validated at Community level. The Commission will also seek to ensure that these alternative methods
obtain the rapid approval of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, thus enabling
them to be used world-wide.

As for the contacts which took place during the drafting of this proposal, the Commission consulted all
the parties concerned by the issue of animal testing, including animal protection groups.

(1) OJ L 358, 8.12.1986.

(2001/C 46 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Ability of Council to answer Parliamentary questions on time

Can the Council state why I did not receive an answer to my written question on Tax Discussions
(P-2219/99)
(which was submitted on 5 November 1999 and which should have been answered in
December) until 4 February 2000?

(2001/C 46 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Solutions to the Council(cid:146)s frequent inability to answer Parliamentary questions on time

Can the Council indicate whether slow responses on the part of certain Member States are responsible for
the Council(cid:146)s frequent inability to answer Parliamentary questions on time, and if so, has thought been
given to setting a time limit for objections by states to suggested answers so that those answers can be
provided to Members of the Parliament within the allotted time frame?