WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/00 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE), Elena Paciotti (PSE) and Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Council. Trade in human organs removed from persons sentenced to death in the People's Republic of China.
Date: 2000-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, common foreign and security policy, death penalty, international human rights law, trade in organs

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/143

(2001/C 103 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Language use in the provision of information to consumers

It appears from the answer to question E-0614/00 (1) that (cid:145)the Member States can adopt measures laying
down that the labels of imported items be in the language of the region where the goods are to be sold or
in any other language easily understandable by consumers of the area concerned(cid:146).

Which Member States have statutory measures regulating language use in the provision of information to
consumers? Which languages are compulsory in those Member States for the provision of information to
consumers?

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2000)

In the answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question E-614/00 (1), the Commission explained the
principles ruling the use of languages for information to consumers.

The Commission is aware that measures regulating language use are in force in several Member States.
However, according to information available, such provisions are usually included in a great number of
texts, each one related to a specific product, category of products or consumer issue.

The Commission receives information about the scope of these regulations only when a citizen or an
economic operator complains about the functioning of the national law or the behaviour of the national
administration. Therefore, Member States are better placed to provide an exhaustive list of their laws
concerning labelling and language use and, if necessary or requested, a justification for their rules.

In any event, citizens and economic operators can always apply to the Commission for a clarification or
complain about a specific problem concerning language provisions in a Member State.

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001, p. 19.

(2001/C 103 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2396/00

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE),
Elena Paciotti (PSE) and Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Council

(24 July 2000)

Subject: Trade in human organs removed from persons sentenced to death in the People(cid:146)s Republic of

China

In a report from Malaysia published on 15 June 2000 in the International Herald Tribune, the respected
journalist Thomas Fuller describes how in the People(cid:146)s Republic of China trade in organs removed from
young persons sentenced to death and summarily executed is continuing under the most inhuman
conditions and in Malaysia alone more than a thousand patients have travelled to Chinese state clinics
and obtained kidney transplants at prices ranging from USD 10 000 to 12 000. According to Fuller, the
methods used for the executions (cid:129) a pistol shot to the back of the neck (cid:129) makes these transplants
particularly desirable as the organs removed are not damaged. These barbaric practices, which apparently
include choosing the victim and date of an execution to meet the (cid:145)demand(cid:146) for organs, have previously

C 103 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

been documented and condemned by Human Rights Watch, humanitarian organisations and international
bodies. These appalling practices, of which rich European patients have apparently also taken advantage,
were condemned in a European Parliament resolution of 14 May 1998 (Resolution B4-0496/98) (1), which
called on the Commission and Council to make representations to the People(cid:146)s Republic of China with a
view to ending the trade in human organs.

1.
As a supporter of China(cid:146)s entry into the World Trade Organisation, albeit subject to the human
rights clause, does the Council not think that the sense of horror generated throughout the world by these
inhuman practices is a serious obstacle to any further normalisation of relations with the People(cid:146)s Republic
of China?

2. Will the Council specify what measures it has taken or intends to take vis-(cid:224)-vis the authorities of the
People(cid:146)s Republic of China, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation to end the trade in
human organs removed from persons sentenced to death?

3. Will the Council inform the European Parliament what has been done to implement the measures
called for in its resolution of 14 May 1998 and with what results?

(1) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 224.

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The Council is aware of the situation referred to by the Honourable Member. The Union systematically
expresses its concerns on human rights in China, in particular at the dialogue sessions on human rights
between China and the EU. Our concerns include the excessive use of the death penalty in China. The
Council certainly takes account of the pertinent resolutions of the European Parliament in adopting its
positions.

(2001/C 103 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2398/00

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(18 July 2000)

Subject: Transport and distribution of food on the island of Ginostra

Current Community directives (93/43/EEC (1) and 96/3/EC (2)) concerning the hygiene of foodstuffs lay
down stringent rules and obligations with regard to the transport and distribution of food throughout the
European Union. The island of Ginostra, a ward of the Mediterranean island of Stromboli, has neither an
airport nor a port for the mooring of ships and hydrofoils. The lack of suitable port infrastructure in
Ginostra obliges the transporters and distributors of essential goods to tranship the goods in a precarious
and irregular manner on to a boat which acts as a shuttle between the shore and the boats of the
scheduled service which regularly drop anchor offshore. This unavoidable state of affairs means that
Community laws are breached and operators are therefore liable to be penalised by the Italian government
supervisory bodies.

Should the Commission not consider conducting an urgent review of Community legislation governing the
transport and distribution of foodstuffs, granting exemptions for the smaller islands of the EU, which
cannot be adequately supplied in that they have no landing stages for suitably equipped vessels?

What alternative solutions does the Commission intend to propose to ensure that the above operators (cid:129)
guilty only of wishing to safeguard the right of the inhabitants of Ginostra to continue living on their
island (cid:129) are able to work within the confines of the law once again?