WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment.
Date: 2000-08-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal welfare, area of freedom, security and justice, drug addiction, right to health

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/11

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

As already indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2864/99 (1), infringe-
ment proceedings in accordance with Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty have been brought
against Spain for its failure to comply with the rules on advertising set out in the (cid:145)Television without
Frontiers(cid:146) Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 June 1997).

Moreover, a study is currently being carried out on the impact of television advertising and teleshopping
on minors. On the basis of the results of this study and other factors, the Commission will propose the
most appropriate measures where necessary.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment

In many European countries drug addicts can been seen living on the street in company with one or more
dogs. The reason why these homeless drug addicts have dogs can apparently be traced back to the law on
animal protection. I have heard that in some Member States that law stipulates that the authorities must
look after and seek a home for ownerless dogs. This in turn reduces the likelihood of the authorities
intervening in the lives of drug addicts living on the street, for example in order to persuade them to seek
treatment, since the outcome would be that dozens of neglected, ownerless dogs would be left on the
street and, pursuant to the law on animal protection, would have to be cared for by the authorities.

Is this correct? If so, what steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the law on
animal protection does not preclude the provision of support for drug addicts to persuade them to seek
treatment? If the law on animal protection does not in itself rule out the provision of such support, are
there practical obstacles to efforts to resolve the problems of the homeless?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member has noticed, some homeless drug addicts have dogs. Dogs may be kept for
security reasons or for company.

The Commission is unaware of any cases where the law on animal protection has prevented drug addicts
from seeking treatment or reduced the likelihood of the authorities to intervene in the lives of drug addicts
living on the street. Even though caring for the addict(cid:146)s pets while in treatment may be problematic in
some cases, this has not been reported as an obstacle for seeking or receiving treatment or other support
in any Member State.