WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/01 by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pet crematoria.
Date: 2001-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: death, domestic animal

C 235 E/250

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

The Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) indicated that the risk of venous thrombosis
was greater for females taking the third generation contraceptive pill than those taking the second
generation contraceptive pill which contains levonorgestrel. Therefore the CPMP considered it necessary
to re-evaluate the data available to ensure that they are not confusing or biased.

In order to carry out this re-evaluation, the CPMP is examining the initial data, the recent information
available and the data provided by the marketing authorisation holders of third generation contraceptives.

The CPMP is currently conducting a scientific analysis of all the data. During its last meeting in February
2001, it advised that a subsequent hearing of the marketing authorisation holders was necessary.

Following this hearing and when the scientific evaluation of the data is completed, the EMEA will publish
the CPMP recommendations on use to complement the two aforementioned position statements. They will
be also be made public on the EMEA website.

It should be noted that such a recommendation is not an irrevocable act.

(2001/C 235 E/295)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects.

Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points:

(cid:129) With regard to question 2.7(a):

(cid:129) Point 36. Can the Commission provide the relevant OLAF report?

(cid:129) Point 42. The reply does not correspond to the question. The question concerned the actions of the
Dutch authorities mentioned in point 42 and not those of the Belgian authorities mentioned in the
same point. Consequently, the Commission is asked once again to reply to question 2.7(a).

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 235 E/296)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1031/01

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2001)

Subject: Pet crematoria

What information does the Commission have on the number of pet crematoria in each Member State?

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/251

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

The Commission does not have the information requested.

(2001/C 235 E/297)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1199/01

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2001)

Subject: Kurdistan

In its reply to my Written Question E-0250/01 (1), the Commission did not reply to the second of my
questions. Given that several of the current applicant countries made peaceful and democratic use of the
right to self-determination in the last decade of the 20th century, what is the Commission(cid:146)s position on the
peaceful and democratic exercise of the right to self-determination?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 207.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0250/01 (1).

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 207.

(2001/C 235 E/298)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1292/01

by Mar(cid:237)a Rodr(cid:237)guez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Closure of the Delphi Packard plant in Olvega (Spain)

(3 May 2001)

The Delphi Packard company, which received a large amount of publicly funded start-up aid from the
Autonomous Community of Castilla y Le(cid:243)n and the province of Soria for its plant in Olvega, has taken the
unilateral decision to close that plant, the driving force behind industrial development in the Moncayo
area, with the loss of 520 jobs.

Delphi Packard, a multinational company, invests Ptas 10 000 million each year in its Olvega plant. The
profits in excess of Ptas 1 000 million generated by that plant are evidence of its viability.

The hasty announcement of the closure and the treatment of the workers at the plant, who have been
presented with a letter of undertaking requiring them to sign up to a transfer or take voluntary
redundancy, constitute a breach of Spanish employment law.

Given that its plant is situated in an Objective 1 region, will the Commission say whether Delphi Packard
has received assistance of any kind from EU Structural Funds?

If so, what steps can the Commission take to ensure that Delphi Packard complies with the undertakings
that it would have given in order to receive assistance from those Funds?