WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. BSE.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: blood transfusion, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, disease prevention, health control, health legislation, organ transplantation

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/99

The Habitats Directive foresees, in Article 16, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the
provisions of Article 12, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not
detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a favourable conservation
status in their natural range. The reasons which can justify such a derogation include the prevention of
serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock and other types of property, the interests of public health
and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or
economic nature.

Finally, for a number of years already, the Commission has financed with Life-Nature funds projects
focussed on assessing the evolution of the situation of the wolf in Europe and particularly in the alpine
zone, and on its conservation. These projects have studied and applied several methods of compensation to
the farmers for damage eventually caused by the wolf, and of mitigation of that damage. One conclusion
of these projects is that the present wolf population in the alpine region is not so large that it might create
problems at the regional level, and that the damage caused is at the local level.

The Commission does not believe, therefore, that it would be helpful to work on common measures or to
adjust the existing Community legislation, particularly for what refers to the Habitats Directive and its
annexes.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

(OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

(2001/C 261 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0377/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: BSE

There is considerable concern about the risk of (cid:145)mad cow disease(cid:146) (BSE) being transmitted to human
beings, an eventuality which, unfortunately, may have occurred already in the period before the introduc-
tion of specific controls; the European public is beginning to ask whether, in addition to measures rightly
aimed at identifying and destroying affected animals and associated measures to prevent the spread of the
disease, it would be possible to obtain an accurate estimate of the possible extent of the infection.

What kind of measures could be taken that would apply to the European public as a whole? Do tests exist
that could be carried out in the course of a mass campaign to ascertain what percentage of the population
is likely to have been infected by the disease? Is there any definite information concerning the transmission
of the disease from one human being to another and the implications that might have for donations of
blood or organs?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to Written Questions E-3746/00 by
Mrs Paulsen and Mr Olsson (1), E-4087/00 by Mr Watson (2), E-0163/01 by Mr Zappal(cid:224) (3) and others, and
Oral Question H-0951/00 by Mr Alavanos during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s January 2001 part-
session (4).

At present no valid tests are available for detecting the presence of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) agent in humans. However, several types of test are currently being developed.

C 261 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Although there is scientific evidence linking variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) to BSE, there is
neither certainty concerning the transmissibility of BSE to humans, nor the transmissibility via blood or
organs of vCJD. However, the Commission is well aware of the potential problem of transmission of vCJD
by blood and blood derivatives. The relevant Scientific Committees continuously monitor the latest
scientific evidence in that area and the Commission will propose preventive measures as necessary. On
13 December 2000 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on quality and safety of blood (5).
This Directive will, once adopted by Parliament and Council, set blood safety standards across the
Community and also provide the legal basis for Community measures regarding the prevention of vCJD
transmission by blood and blood derivatives.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 132.
(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 129.
(3) See page 53.
(4) Written answer from 16.1.2001.
(5) COM(2000) 816 final.

(2001/C 261 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/01

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Coal mining in the Ruhr region, North Rhine-Westphalia

Highly subsidised coal is being mined in North Rhine-Westphalia. The Commission only granted the coal
subsidy on condition that there would be an overall decrease in production, leading to further pit closures.
However, according to the attached newspaper article, which appeared on 27 January 2001 in the
(cid:145)Rheinische Post(cid:146), Ruhrkohle AG is in fact planning to expand the Walsum pit. In addition, the outline
operational plan is to be revised.

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the expansion to this pit in the light of the expressed political
objective and the conditions made with the aim of reducing the production of highly subsidised coal?

If necessary, what does the Commission intend to do in order to prevent an increase in coal

2.
production?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2001)

The Commission authorised State aid to the German coal industry for the year 2000 by Decision of
1.
21 December 2000 (1). The Decision provides in particular for further reductions of activity which must
lead to closures of production sites in addition to the closures already planned by Germany for the years
2000, 2001 and 2002. These additional closures correspond, in the context of aid for 2000, to a reduction
in operating aid under Article 3 of Decision 3632/93/ECSC of DM 1 200 million and to an increase in aid
for the reduction of activity of the same amount (2).

The reduction in new production capacity was a crucial element in the decision taken by the Commission.
The principle of reducing the coal industry(cid:146)s costs and production capacity is necessary in order to achieve
degression of aids. Nonetheless, it is not within the Commission(cid:146)s powers to involve itself in decisions
taken by the company which owns the mine regarding the operation of any particular pit. The
Commission(cid:146)s power of authorisation with regard to State aid to the coal industry must be exercised
strictly within the framework of the provisions of Decision No 3632/93/ECSC, and more particularly in
the light of the general objectives referred to in Article 2 and the specific criteria laid down for the various
types of aid in Article 3 et seq.