WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/00 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Threats to official vets and animal welfare organisations.
Date: 2000-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, animal welfare, application of EU law, association, competence of the Member States, export refund, human rights, protection of animals, transport of animals

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/157

(2001/C 174 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3832/00

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: European Southern Observatory

What is the nature of the relationship between the Commission and the ESO (European Southern
Observatory)?

Has the Commission helped to fund ESO research projects in the past, and/or does it intend to do so in
the future?

Should the EU enter into a partnership with the ESO similar to that with the ESA (European Space
Agency)?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2001)

The ESO is a European intergovernmental organisation which occupies a central position in astronomy in
Europe. There is no formal link between the ESO and the Commission other than those deriving from its
involvement in the framework programme for research and technological development.

The ESO receives many Community contracts. One may mention, in particular, the Astrovirtel project
funded as part of the (cid:145)Access to research infrastructures(cid:146) project within the (cid:145)Boosting the human potential
of research(cid:146) programme. That project embraces the first virtual
telescope permitting access to the
phenomenal flow of data from the large international telescopes.

In contrast to space policy the Commission does not play an active part in astronomical research. There is
thus no intention to enter into a partnership with the ESO similar to that recently brought into being with
the European Space Agency (ESA). Nevertheless, that organisation continues to be one of the Commis-
sion(cid:146)s major partners since it is at the forefront in Europe in its particular area. That is especially true in
terms of the thinking currently on implementing the European research area project.

(2001/C 174 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3833/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Threats to official vets and animal welfare organisations

(7 December 2000)

In the light of the current case in which the head of the animal welfare organisation GAIA received threats
for publishing a video about the situation at Belgian slaughterhouses, and bearing in mind cases which
have come to my attention in which official vets and animal transport inspectors have been threatened in
the EU, having repeatedly been subjected to massive threats by the transport companies(cid:146) lobby on account
of their commitment to compliance with Directive 91/628/EC (1):

1. What information does the Commission have concerning the practice of intimidating and/or black-
mailing official vets or other authorities and organisations with the aim of wholly or partially evading
animal welfare provisions, which often entail considerable expense, in order to obtain export refunds?

2. Are there grounds for suspecting that criminal organisations are committing offences, either in
individual cases or even systematically, with the result that payments are being wrongly made from
EU funds?

3.

the answer to any of

If
Commission take at Community level in order to remedy such an unacceptable situation?

these questions is even partially affirmative, what measures will

the

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991, p. 17.

C 174 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2001)

The Commission has, on several occasions, been informed by animal welfare societies carrying out studies
into the welfare of
they have received threats from transporters or their
employees.

transported animals that

The Commission is not, however, in possession of any conclusive evidence that Member States(cid:146) officials
have been obstructed or prevented from performing their duties in relation to the requirements of
Community legislation on the transport of animals or the payment of export refunds on live bovines in
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1).

The Commission is currently carrying out enquiries in several Member States concerning the implementa-
tion of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of
application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during
transport (1).

The responsibility for ensuring that no breaches of criminal law occur in relation to the matters raised by
the Honourable Member rests with the Member States. The Commission does, however, have a responsi-
bility to ensure that Member States implement and adequately enforce the relevant Community legislation.
The Commission would certainly need to consider taking appropriate action if it appeared that the
authorities in any Member State were unable to ensure compliance with their Community law obligations
in this domain because of conduct of the type mentioned by the Honourable Member.

In this context the Commission is, of course, prepared to examine carefully any evidence that the
Honourable Member can supply to back up her submissions.

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998.

(2001/C 174 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3834/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Monitoring of animal transport

It has been established that hitherto the authorities of the Member States have only been formally
monitoring certification pursuant to Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation 615/98/EC (1) and, if necessary,
formally checking the reports upon unloading in the third country of final destination pursuant to Article
3(3) of Commission Regulation 615/98/EC, while even the design of the forms gives the impression that
more detailed statements by official vets are not called for or cannot even be made and that, in carrying
out their duty of investigation, the national authorities do not substantively, either at all or fully, require
compliance with the Directive on the protection of animals during transport pursuant to Article 1 of
Commission Regulation 615/98/EC in conjunction with Directive 91/628/EEC and have not adopted
adequate procedural precautions.

What will the Commission do, therefore, to ensure that, before granting export refunds, the authorities of
the Member States adequately check that all preconditions for payment pursuant to Commission Regula-
tion 615/98/EC and Council Regulation 805/68/EEC (2) have been complied with?

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 19.
(2) OJ L 148, 28.6.1968, p. 24.