WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/01 by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Social situation in the European Union.
Date: 2001-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, report, social situation

C 81 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The data sought, on the quantity and type of fish used for feeding fur animals, is not at present available to
the Commission. But, the industry in the Nordic countries has indicated that, in the year 2000, the use of
fish from the Baltic Sea was around 60 000 tonnes, 10 000 tonnes and 30 000 tonnes in Finland, Sweden
and Denmark, respectively. These figures do not include industries using fish from the Baltic Sea for
fishmeal, fish oil or other purposes. Also, they do not include fur farmers who import fish for fur farming
purposes from regions other than the Baltic Sea.

fur animals,

these are generally considered as by-products of

Concerning, skinned carcases of
the
production of fur and, as such, must comply with the provisions of Council Directive 90/667/EEC of
27 November 1990 (1) on animal waste, requiring Member States to ensure that animal by-products are
disposed of or processed in safe and controlled conditions. As a rule,
this applies to fur animal
by-products. However, Member States may, in restricted circumstances and under veterinary supervision,
authorise the use of fur animal by-products for the production of feed for similar animals whose flesh does
not enter the food chain.

The use of fur animal by-products for the production of feed for similar animals is not prohibited by
current Community legislation providing for a total suspension on the feeding of processed animal protein
to farmed animals which are kept, fattened or bred for the production of food. But Council Decision
2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (2) imposes a basic requirement on the
competent authorities to ensure that, where such feed is produced,
it is manufactured in plants that
prepare exclusively feed for those animals, and does not present a risk to human or animal health.
Furthermore, such feed must not derive from, or contain specified risk material as foreseen by the
Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of 22 May 2001 laying down rules for the
prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (3).

Regarding subsidies for processing fur, in the context of diversification of activities in rural areas, the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) co-financing, which is limited to investment
aids for fur rearing, is not excluded under the condition that the relevant hygienic, environmental and
animal welfare prescriptions are respected. However, such an intervention is very exceptional. Since fur is
not a product of Annex I, EAGGF intervention for fur processing is excluded.

(1) OJ L 363, 27.12.1990.
(2) OJ L 306, 7.12.2000, as implemented by Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000,

(OJ L 2,
5.1.2001), and as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001, (OJ L 177,
30.6.2001).

(3) OJ L 147, 31.5.2001.

(2002/C 81 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/01

by Marielle De Sarnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 June 2001)

Subject: Social situation in the European Union

On 14 March 2001, the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs published the second
annual report on the social situation in Europe. What specific measures does the European Commission
intend to take in the light of that report?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/63

While the quality of that report is to be welcomed, since it provides a quantitative and qualitative analysis
of social trends observed in Europe which maintains continuity following the Lisbon Summit and ties in
with the adoption of the Social Policy Agenda at the European Council meeting in Nice,
it would
nevertheless be useful if the Commission were to draw the proper conclusions from the analysis and
indicate the practical measures which it intends to take in the social field.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Social Situation Report 2001 is intended to be a reference document outlining main social trends and
developments. It presents in a comprehensive way comparative analysis and reliable data and complements
other Commission reports on topical issues such as employment, social protection, industrial relations and
gender equality.

The Report contributes to the monitoring of developments in the social field across Member States. The
harmonised social indicators play a crucial role here. The scope of the Report also makes it a solid source
for forward-looking analysis and reflection and underpins new policy initiatives.

For future editions (cid:129) from the 2002 report onwards (cid:129) and in line with the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
suggestion, it is the Commission(cid:146)s intention to draw conclusions and outline policy responses in the report.

(2002/C 81 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1802/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 June 2001)

Subject: Working languages in the European Patents Office

The Council has still not answered question P-0762/01 (1) on language policy in the Alicante Trade Mark
Office or the European Patents Office. The question was tabled 13 weeks ago, and the official deadline for
answers is six weeks.

The Council did nevertheless set out a Community approach to Community patents on Thursday 31 May.
But where language policy was concerned, that text was confined to stating that translation costs had to be
kept down.

The European Union upholds the principle that everyone must able to apply to the Institutions in one of
the eleven official languages. In that connection the debate on working languages in the European Patents
Office assumes a special significance.

Can the Council now answer the following questions:

1. Does the Council recognise that it must be possible for patent applications to the European Patents
Office to be submitted in any of the eleven official EU languages? If so, how does the Council
guarantee that individuals and companies can apply for a patent in the eleven official EU languages? If
not, how does the Council justify its departure from that principle?

2. Does the Council support the Greek government initiative in challenging the language policy of the

Alicante Trademarks Office?

(1) See page 6.