WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. German compensation for detainees who carried out forced labour in concentration camps.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Greece, Second World War, civilian victim, indemnification, war damage

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/85

Can the Commission set out the legal arguments which show that Greece is not fully implementing the
above directive?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(10 October 2000)

The Commission has delivered a reasoned opinion to Greece for non-respect of the hunting provisions of
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The Commission
considers that Greek hunting legislation infringes the obligation to protect wild birds during their rearing
season and the various stages of reproduction, and, in the case of migratory birds, during the period of
return to rearing grounds. In particular, the Greek legislation allows the hunting season to extend to the
28 February, thereby overlapping with the protected period for 17 bird species included in Annex II of the
Directive.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 136 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: German compensation for detainees who carried out forced labour in concentration camps

In April 1996 a petition (No 987/97) was lodged with Parliament(cid:146)s Petitions Committee by 17 Greek
women who during the German occupation had carried out hard labour in concentration camps.

In view of the agreement signed in July 2000 by the German Government undertaking to compensate, by
means of a special fund, 1,5 million elderly individuals who were compelled to carry out hard labour
during the Second World War, can the Commission say:

(a) whether the Greek women who signed the petition and others in similar circumstances are due

compensation by virtue of the above agreement, and

(b)

if not, what avenues are available to them to pursue their claims that they suffered treatment similar
to those receiving compensation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2000)

It is not possible for the Commission to say whether the terms and conditions of the agreement mentioned
by the Honourable Member would entitle the Greek women who signed petition No 987/97, or others in
similar circumstances, to compensation. This is a matter for the German government.

C 136 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Petition No 987/97 was discussed at a meeting of the Parliament(cid:146)s petitions committee on 1 December
1998 and it was decided that as Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 (1) did not
apply to schemes in favour of war victims,
it would address the Petitions Committee of the German
Bundestag to try to improve the situation of these victims.

(1) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying
down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2001/C 136 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Medical research involving primates

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk,
Netherlands, is being funded by the EU?

Have steps been taken to ensure that primates are treated in an acceptable manner within that institution?

How has the Commission been supporting efforts to validate alternative testing methods for the
development of vaccines which are currently tested on primates throughout the EU?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 2000)

the Commission funded the
In the fourth framework programme for research and development,
biomedical primate research centre (BPRC) in Rijswijk, the Netherlands, to a total amount of approximately
€ 7,2 million. The funding encompasses a number of three-year projects started between 1995 and 1998
and covering a broad spectrum of research areas, including vaccine and drug development for Human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C as well as research on immunological
and neurological diseases. Financing in the fifth framework programme has only started, but amounts so
far to approximately € 3,3 million.

Significant improvements in animal housing conditions at BPRC have been made. Many of the animals
previously housed in single cages are now kept in outdoor facilities for social housing. The aim is to house
all stock breeding macaques in social outdoor configuration. Larger cages have recently been bought for
singly housed animals. During the experiments, the animals are individually housed in cages fulfilling the
requirements under Community legislation. The animal department is licensed to perform studies under
(OECD) principles of good laboratory
the Organisation for economic cooperation and development
practice (GLP). Chimpanzees housed at BPRC are not engaged in experiments where serious complications
resulting in their death can be foreseen. Animals are retired after experiments.

Since the launch of the fifth framework programme in 1999, all projects involving experiments on non-
human primates in the quality of life programme are subject to a careful ethical evaluation by an
independent and multidisciplinary review panel that includes representatives from animal welfare organisa-
tions. This ethical review panel assesses both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the animal experi-
ments. It takes account of the overall benefit of the research proposed in relation to possible suffering of
animals. The contractor has to follow strictly the recommendations of the ethical panel.