WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Making the Montenegrin people's choice with regard to independence no longer dependent on punishing or rewarding the Yugoslav regime.
Date: 2001-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Montenegro, national independence, the EU's international role

C 81 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Reply

(20 November 2001)

The Council can confirm that Germany raised within the Council bodies the matter of a nomination of a
German candidate for the Presidency of the ICAO Council. All Member States have expressed their support
for this candidature.

(2002/C 81 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1057/01

by Pat Gallagher (UEN) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Veterinary inspections in slaughterhouses

Can the Commission confirm that it would be correct to interpret Council Directive 64/433/EEC (1), and in
particular Article 2(d) and Article 9 thereof, as implying that the (cid:145)official veterinarian(cid:146) must be physically
present in the slaughterhouse during ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections?

(1) OJ B 121, 29.7.1964, p. 2012.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Council Directive 64/433/EEC as amended lays down health rules for the production and placing on the
market of fresh meat from domestic bovine animals, swine, sheep, goats and solipeds.

Article 3(1)(A) provides that carcase meat must (cid:145)(cid:133) (b) come from a slaughtered animal inspected ante
mortem by an official veterinarian (cid:133)(cid:146) and (cid:145)(d) have been inspected post mortem by an official
veterinarian (cid:133)(cid:146)

Article 9 provides that (cid:145)Member States shall ensure: (i) the permanent presence of at least one official
veterinarian in a slaughterhouse approved in accordance with Article 10 throughout the ante-mortem and
post-mortem inspections(cid:146).

However, Article 4, by way of derogation from Article 3, allows Member States to place meat from low-
throughput slaughterhouses on the market
territory under certain
conditions. These include a degree of latitude in that the slaughterhouse in question must notify the
veterinary service in advance of the time of slaughter to allow it to carry out the ante mortem inspection
either on the farm or at the slaughterhouse. In addition, the official veterinarian or an auxiliary under the
responsibility of the official veterinarian must carry out the post mortem inspection of the meat and where
the meat has lesions or appears to have deteriorated, the post mortem inspection must be carried out by
the official veterinarian.

for marketing in their national

(2002/C 81 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1063/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Making the Montenegrin people(cid:146)s choice with regard to independence no longer dependent on

punishing or rewarding the Yugoslav regime

1.
Can you confirm that on 9 February there was a visit, on behalf of the Union(cid:146)s (cid:145)troika(cid:146), to the
Montenegrin capital Podgorica when the view put across to the President and Prime Minister of
Montenegro was that Montenegro should reach an agreement with Serbia on maintaining a reformed
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/9

Does the Council recall that in late 1991 or early 1992 the Council, on behalf of the European
2.
Union, took the view that all six federal republics of what was then the Socialist Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia had the same right to recognition as independent states, and that Montenegro was the only one
of the federal states to voluntarily waive this right because at the time in question a political majority had
chosen to uphold the decision taken in 1918 to dissolve the independent state of Montenegro in favour of
a shared future with Serbia?

3.
Does the Council realise that the willingness at that time of the European Union to recognise the
Montenegrin state had an impact on Montenegro(cid:146)s domestic politics and contributed to the rise of parties
advocating a return to independence, the official boycotting of Yugoslav parliamentary and presidential
elections and to the government drafting a referendum in which Montenegrin voters can express an
opinion for or against independence?

How does the Council assess the fact that Montenegrins themselves have an opportunity of choosing

4.
between:

(a)

the offer made by Yugoslavia(cid:146)s new President Kostunica (cid:129) elected only by Serbians (cid:129) to form a new
(con)federation under the name (cid:145)Srbija-Crnagora(cid:146) (Serbia-Montenegro), or

(b)

retaining their de facto independence, the result of isolation of the Milosevic regime, which would give
them the same status as that now acknowledged for the other former republics of Yugoslavia?

5.
Is the Council prepared in future to refrain from encouraging separatism and from making the choice
between separation and reunification a form of punishment or reward for whatever Yugoslav regime, but
to recognise that democracy, peace and stability can best function if decisions on the future of a state are
taken not by outsiders but by the inhabitants themselves?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

The Council confirms that an EU Troika visited Podgorica on 9 February to explain, inter alia, the EU
position on the future relationship between Serbia and Montenegro. It underlined the need for dialogue
and the avoidance of unilateral steps, as such steps could have detrimental consequences for the stability of
the Western Balkans region. The Troika also expressed the EU(cid:146)s preference for a redefined federal
framework. A similar message was passed on by the EU Troika after the parliamentary elections in
Montenegro on 22 April.

The Council has never encouraged Montenegro to seek independence. Even during the final stages of the
Milosevic regime, when the EU supported Montenegro politically and economically against mounting
pressure from Belgrade, the EU continued to dissuade President Djukanovic from breaking away from the
federation.

Montenegrin independence, especially but not only if declared unilaterally, would be likely to have a
(cid:145)domino effect(cid:146) on other parts of the region, e.g. Kosovo, Sandjak or the Albanian-speaking parts of
FYROM, posing a serious threat to the stability of the Balkans. The international community is paying a
high price for Balkan instability, as indeed is the population of the region and therefore has every right to
take a view on the outcome. For this reason the Council continues to uphold its preference for a
negotiated settlement, satisfactory to both parties and based on a democratic, transparent process and the
immediate resumption of dialogue between Belgrade and Podgorica for
the
constitutional arrangements governing their relations in a new federal framework, in compliance with
democratic principles and on terms conducive to regional stability. The recent election results in
Montenegro are also encouraging from this point of view. The radically changed political situation in the
FRY and the establishment of a democratic government in Belgrade both at the federal and republican level
should be conducive to such a solution.

the redefinition of