WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Whaling on the Faeroe Islands (Denmark).
Date: 2001-04-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EC Directive, Faroes, competence of the Member States, hunting, protection of animals, whale

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/201

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

Finland notified in autumn 2000 the Decision of Council of State on rural development (Aid No N 97/00,
N 160/00 and N 264/00). This legislation, that refers both to co-financed investments and nationally
funded investments was approved by the Commission the 9 October 2000.

According to the explanation provided from the Finnish authorities on the notified legislation,
the
investments in machinery are funded purely from national funds. Furthermore the Finnish authorities have
decided that investments in machinery made by machinery chains or other farmers(cid:146) associations are not
eligible if the associations in question do not practice farming. This decision is the responsibility of the
Finnish authorities and the financing of the acquisition of machinery is only made through national funds.
The Commission cannot comment on this.

(2001/C 340 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1237/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Whaling on the Faeroe Islands (Denmark)

For some time now the Faeroe Islands(cid:146) bloody tradition of hunting pilot whales has been the object of
widespread public indignation.

That being so, I should like to ask the Commission the following questions:

1. Under S. 1 of the German Animal Protection Act, for example, it is illegal to do harm to an animal
without a valid reason. The Faeroe Islanders(cid:146) whale hunts subject whole schools of long-finned pilot
whales to a bestial fight to the death. Even pregnant females and new-born calves are killed. How can
this be reconciled with the European concept of animal protection?

2.

3.

Is it true that, when the slaughter of whole families of pilot whales is mentioned, Denmark refers to
the Faeroe Islands(cid:146) autonomy in internal matters (cultural affairs), but that these North Atlantic Islands
receive funding support to the tune of some € 140 million per year?

Public opinion polls show that the Danish population is opposed to the killing of whales on the
Faeroe Islands. International health organisations have also warned against the consumption of pilot
whale meat, which is contaminated with heavy metals. How can it be that all these facts are being
ignored?

4.

Is it true that a large proportion of the meat from these whales is not eaten but ends up on rubbish
tips?

5. What reasons did Denmark have for being the only EU country at the last IWC conference to vote
against the establishment of a whale protection zone between Australia and New Zealand, thus giving
support to Norway and Japan, which are in favour of whaling?

6.

Former whaling countries in the EU, such as Portugal, Spain and the UK, have long abandoned their
whaling traditions and not suffered any cultural loss as a result. Does the Commission agree that the
Faeroe Islands should do likewise?

C 340 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

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

(20 June 2001)

Cetaceans are strictly protected by the Habitats Directive (1), which requires Member States to take
measures to ensure a favourable conservation status for them. However, the EC Treaty does not apply to
the Faeroe Islands (2), which means that nature protection provisions based on the EC Treaty do not apply
there either.

The Community does not support any form of cetacean hunting or of trade in products obtained through
that activity. The Commission has no specific information on the presence of contaminants in the meat of
cetaceans or on the final destination of such meat.

The Commission has long supported a definitive ban on commercial whaling (3). However, a difference of
opinion among the Member States has prevented the Community from adopting a common position on its
membership of the International Whaling Commission.

With regard to the other points, and particularly questions 2 and 5, it would be for the Danish authorities
to answer the questions put by the Honourable Member, as the Commission is unable to do so.

(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).

(2) Documents concerning the accession to the European Communities of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the
Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Act concerning the conditions
of accession and the adjustments to the Treaties, Part Two Adjustments to the Treaties, Title II Other adjustments,
Article 27 (OJ L 73, 27.3.1972). EC Treaty, Article 299(6)(a) (formerly Article 227).

(3) Commission communication to the Council concerning the conservation of whales within the framework of the

International Whaling Commission, COM(92) 316 final.

(2001/C 340 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1239/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Distribution of new cars

The current rules for the distribution of new cars (the so-called (cid:145)block exemption(cid:146)) are under review. What
measures are in place to prevent manufacturers from taking tighter control of their market before the
revised rules are imposed? Does the Commission have evidence of any such action by manufacturers?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2001)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question refers to car manufacturers taking tighter control of their market. The
Commission presumes that the Honourable Member has in mind those car manufacturers that choose to
reduce their reliance on a franchised dealer network in favour of directly owned distribution centres.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to emphasise that Commission Block Exemption
Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1) does not dictate which of the
many available legitimate sales methods a company may adopt; it merely stipulates that a carmaker who
elects to sell via a selective and exclusive distribution network must adhere to a set of specific rules. The
provisions in the Regulation that give a dealer protection against premature termination of his contract are
principally intended to counterbalance the high degree of manufacturer power inherent in a selective and
exclusive distribution system operating through dealerships and do not aim to favour sales via a network
dealership over direct sales, or vice versa.