WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Unequal treatment of Greek fishermen.
Date: 2001-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, common fisheries policy, equal treatment, fishing area, fishing regulations, territorial waters

C 350 E/42

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

In the context of the ongoing scientific risk assessment conducted by the Scientific Steering Committee of
the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk in third countries, known as the geographical BSE-risk
(GBR), the export figures for processed animal protein are being scrutinised for the third countries, having
forwarded a dossier. The outcome of these risk assessments, which include these figures, are made available
on the Internet.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat tables
containing the information requested in her second and third questions (2).

In relation to BSE certain conditions for exports from the Community of meat and bone meal, or
processed animal proteins, are laid down in Council Decision 2000/766/EC. It follows from Article 3 of
this Decision that exports from Member States of processed animal proteins intended for the feeding of
farmed animals for food production is prohibited. This does not apply to milk and milk products, gelatine
of non-ruminants for coating, hydrolysed protein, and fishmeal intended to animals other than ruminants.
Member States may export processed animal protein destined for other use to third countries, provided
a bilateral agreement exists, which includes an undertaking by the third country to respect the final use
and not to export the product, unless incorporated in a product destined for uses not prohibited by the
Decision.

Commission Decision 2000/418/EC of 29 June 2000 regulating the use of material presenting risks as
regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and amending Decision 94/474/EC (3)provides that
imports into the Community of beef and meat products from 1 April 2001 will be subject to certification
that the products meet the specific Community requirements concerning specified risk material and
slaughter method. The GBR will be the basis for determining for which third countries a derogation from
this requirement can be given.

(1) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.
(2) Source: Comext (cid:129) Period 1997-1999.
(3) OJ L 158, 30.6.2000.

(2001/C 350 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Unequal treatment of Greek fishermen

(19 March 2001)

In its answer to my question concerning the unequal treatment of Greek fishermen compared with
fishermen from other countries owing to the difference in the range of their exclusive fishing zone, the
Commission stated that this situation arose because Greece had fixed the boundary of its territorial waters
at 6 nautical miles and that the Commission was unable to intervene over the consequences of that fact
(answer No P-0149/01 (1)).

Regardless of whether the Member State or the Commission is competent in this case, Greek fishermen
continue to be unfairly treated because their exclusive fishing zone is less wide. Does such discrimination
constitute sufficient grounds for compensatory aid?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-0149/01
on 16 February 2001 (1).

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/43

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, the size of the exclusive fishing zone, which is determined by the Member State,
does not constitute grounds for granting compensatory aid at Community level.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 129.

(2001/C 350 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0809/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Thameslink 2000 project

Railtrack PLC, a London-based company, has proposed the Thameslink 2000 scheme, at present the
subject of a Transport & Works Act public inquiry, requiring the construction of a series of new steel and
concrete viaducts through the Borough Market. The project involves the total demolition of 16 buildings,
nine listed Grade II (including the whole of the Georgian Terrace designed by Sir Robert Smirke, architect
of the British Museum) and the reconfiguration of a further eight, seven of which are listed, in the heart of
the Borough Street Conservation area.

The Borough Market is the oldest municipal fruit and vegetable market still trading on its original site,
where Shakespeare acted and Dickens lived, and has recently seen a remarkable regeneration with the
establishment of Tate Modern and Shakespeare(cid:146)s Globe Theatre.
It is of such unique environmental
significance and quality that there should be a presumption against permitting the irreparable damage the
project would cause. In the light of the 1954 European Convention and the 1985 Convention for the
Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, will the Commission intervene and investigate the
matter?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

Article 151 (ex Article 128) of the EC Treaty gives the Community the power to encourage co-operation
between Member States in the sphere of culture. The question raised by the Honourable Member is not
is the exclusive
within the Community(cid:146)s jurisdiction; by virtue of
responsibility of the Member State.

the principle of subsidiarity,

it

Moreover, the Community is not a party to the European Cultural Convention of 19 December 1954 or to
the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 3 October 1985;
it is
therefore not within the Commission(cid:146)s remit to examine possible infringements.

(2001/C 350 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0823/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2001)

Subject: Treatment of raw milk

In view of the forthcoming comprehensive overhaul of food hygiene regulations and the aim to allow
treatment of raw milk by milk producers (for example by microfiltration):

(cid:129) Is the Commission aware that this means that a parameter indicative of udder health and the general
state of health of the herd may be legally removed, and that a farmer may consequently falsely present