WRITTEN QUESTION E-4140/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Sheepmeat regime.
Date: 2001-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aid system, common organisation of markets, goatmeat, indemnification, price support, sheepmeat

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/145

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

(5 March 2001)

The classification of trichloroethylene is being considered in the context of Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on
the risks of existing substances (1) and Directive 67/548/EEC on the
the evaluation and control of
classification and labelling of dangerous substances. The European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) at Ispra in
Italy provides the technical/scientific support, consulting the Member States and industry via the
like
(cid:145)Carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reproductive toxicity(cid:146)
trichloroethylene, are referred to the so-called (cid:145)Specialised Experts(cid:146) Group, made up of
independent
scientists from all Member States.

(CMR) working group. Difficult cases,

The Specialised Experts Group examines proposals for classification of chemicals on their scientific merits
alone. In this case, the Specialised Experts, meeting on 30-31 March 2000, recommended a classification
of carcinogen category 2 (R45). The CMR working group of Member State experts, meeting on 9-12 May
2000, almost unanimously supported this classification. This conclusion has been reached after several
years of detailed consideration of the overall scientific evidence. This evaluation included, but was not
limited to, the cited epidemiological studies. The Commission would like to draw the attention to the fact
that classification as a category 2 carcinogen (classification primarily based on animal experiments) is
proposed rather than as a category 1 carcinogen (classification based on epidemiological data).

The Commission would like to point out that such a classification would not automatically lead to
restrictions on the marketing and use of substances. However, the Commission will examine possible
marketing or use restrictions, under Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations (2). Following normal practice for substances classified as
category 1 or 2 CMRs, the Commission will consider carefully the appropriateness of a possible ban on the
marketing of trichloroethylene to consumers. Furthermore, the Commission committed itself to special
consideration of trichloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents at the time of the adoption of Directive
the
94/60/EEC (the 14th Amendment
advantages and drawbacks of any marketing and use restrictions will be considered, in consultation with
the industry and other interested parties.

to 76/769/EEC) (3). Before coming forward with a proposal,

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4140/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: Sheepmeat regime

Bearing in mind the publication of the (cid:145)Evaluation on the common organisation of the markets in the
sheep and goatmeat sector(cid:146) in November 2000 and the subsequent European Conference in Brussels on
20 November on the (cid:145)Track record and prospects for European ovine product organisation(cid:146) at which
Commissioner Fischler and Ms Mary Minch spoke and given that the present regime does not reflect
adequately the market situation, particularly for northern European countries (the UK and Ireland
especially), could the Commission outline what proposals it has to review the sheepmeat regime with
a view to attaining a just and equitable price/market support system?

C 187 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The evaluation of the common organization of the markets in the sheep and goat meat sector raised many
important and interesting points. In general terms it concluded that the premium regime has allowed
sheep and goat producers to maintain their relative position but that the method of calculation of the
premium is flawed. In particular, the quality of the data available leaves much to be desired. This concerns
price collection as well as the calculation of the technical coefficient.

The report identifies certain options, which it suggests should be considered. Essentially there is a choice
between improving the present system in order to obtain more accurate data necessary to calculate the
premium and the simplification of the system. The first solution would make an already complicated
system even more complicated.
In the light of this the Commission is examining the possibility of
simplifying the system by replacing the deficiency payment with a fixed premium. The overall objective
of the reform would be to provide a sound basis upon which producers could develop their enterprises
with the minimum of administrative interference. Furthermore, such an approach would be more adapted
to the aims of the World trade organisation (WTO) than the present price related system.

(2001/C 187 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4144/00

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 January 2001)

Subject: The position of atheists, agnostics and humanists

The Directive on Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation outlaws discrimination on the grounds
of age, disability, religion or belief and sexual orientation. This is in line with Article 13 of the EC Treaty.
Is there a general definition of the term (cid:145)belief(cid:146), or is this determined by each Member State? What is the
position of atheists, agnostics and humanists with regard to the Directive on Equal Treatment in Employ-
ment and Occupation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation (1) establishes a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect
discrimination based, inter alia, on religion or belief.

There is no general definition of the term (cid:145)belief(cid:146) in the Directive. The substance of the protection against
discrimination on the grounds of belief would have to be examined by the Court of Justice.

Without prejudice to Article 4(1) and (2) concerning occupational requirements, the general prohibition of
discrimination based on religion or belief applies also to atheists, agnostics and humanists.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.