WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Airport malaria.
Date: 2000-09-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: civil aviation, disease prevention, disease vector, infectious disease, public health, transport regulations

C 136 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

After having requested and obtained information from the German government about the scope and
content of its bilateral air transport agreements, as well as about the experience of implementation of the
provisions of the law, the Commission is in the process of analysing and assessing whether those
provisions discriminate against citizens of the Union who are not German nationals.

(1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

(2001/C 136 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2887/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Dangerous dogs

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce legislation on dangerous dogs in the EU?

If so, on what grounds does the Commission justify action at Community rather than at Member State
level? Should not the principle of subsidiarity dictate that this should be left to Member States to decide?

Does the Commission have any plans to introduce EU rules to ban Staffordshire bull terriers?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it currently has no plans to propose
Community harmonisation designed to ban dangerous dogs. It therefore has no intention of proposing
any rules banning Staffordshire bull terriers.

In this case, the Commission believes that it is up to the Member States to adopt the appropriate national
measures, while complying with the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30
and 36) thereof.

Indeed, although Article 28 stipulates that Member States may not adopt national measures that create
restrictions on the free movement of the animals concerned, Article 30 authorises them to do so if such
measures are justified on grounds of the protection of the health and life of humans, provided that the
restrictions concerned are proportionate to the objective to be attained and are applicable without
distinction.

(2001/C 136 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2888/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Airport malaria

Will the Commission state whether it is satisfied that the rules on the spraying with insecticide of aircraft
arriving from the tropics are being properly applied, given the increase in the number of cases of airport
malaria reported, especially in France, Belgium and the United Kingdom, outlined in the August edition of
the Bulletin of the World Health Organisation?

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/125

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Airport malaria is a rare and potentially serious disease. Since 1977, when the disease was first
documented, 75 cases of airport malaria have been observed in western Europe. People may be infected
by the bite of an anopheles mosquito during a flight or stopover, or while opening containers or luggage
anywhere in the airport area. People who live near an airport or whose road transport brings them into
the vicinity may also be affected. The highest risk of airport malaria comes from western and central
Africa, as most of the air traffic from these countries includes stopovers in western Europe. Airport malaria
occurs mainly in hot summers, a period more favourable to the survival of anopheles. In addition, the
summer months in Europe correspond to the rainy season in African regions located between the Tropic
of Cancer and the equator, a period when malaria transmission is high.

Prevention of airport malaria is based on aircraft disinsection for aircraft coming from malaria endemic
areas. This disinsection, which is part of the international health regulations, must be done following the
World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. Several methods are available.

Member State authorities, the medical professions, as well as the general public have been informed
through the information channels of the Community network of this emerging but still relatively rare
health threat. It is the responsibility of the Member States to ensure that appropriate preventive measures
are implemented at the airports. The spread of malaria by this route is not yet fully understood and even
when correctly applied, the WHO disinsection recommendations may not prevent all cases of airport
malaria.

(2001/C 136 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2900/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 September 2000)

Subject: Road accidents

Article 2 of Decision No 1692/96/EC (1) of
the Council on the
development of the trans-European transport network states that the objective of the network is to (cid:145)ensure
the sustainable mobility of persons and goods (cid:133) under the best possible social and safety conditions(cid:146).

the European Parliament and of

Four years later, however, the number of people injured in road accidents remains constant in all 15
Member States, according to European Union statistics, while the number of fatalities in countries such as
Greece, Spain and Portugal is steadily rising.

What does the Commission intend to do, therefore, to increase the level of safety on European roads?

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

From a human, social and economic standpoint, road safety is a very serious concern in the Community.
There are enormous differences between the Member States.

The improvement of road safety is a responsibility shared by all concerned: the Community, the Member
States, regional authorities, businesses and of course, the individual.