WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/01 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transgenic salmon.
Date: 2001-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European patent, application of EU law, biotechnology, consumer protection, environmental protection, fish, genetically modified organism, patent law, transgenic animal

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/167

The case raised by the Honourable Member concerns British citizens resident abroad who go to study in
higher education institutions in the United Kingdom. The condition of access to student loans is an
internal matter not covered by Community law.

The alleged British student loan system covers living costs (cid:30) accommodation, food, clothes, travel etc. and
falls there with outside Community rules.

To the extent that the British system provides assistance to cover tuition fees (which falls within the scope
of the EC Treaty, as mentioned before), the conditions that are imposed conform with Community law: the
student must be a national of an Member State or a child of such a national and he must have lived in the
European Economic Area (EEA: Member States and Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) throughout the three
years before the start of the first academic year of the course for which he is seeking help with fees.

(2002/C 115 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2823/01

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Transgenic salmon

On 18 July this year the European Patent Office for the first time registered a patent for a transgenic
animal for human consumption (cid:30) a genetically modified species of salmon originating in Canada.

How can this move be compatible with the ban on the patenting of animal species contained in the
European Patent Convention?

What steps will be taken to protect natural species of salmon from any contact with transgenic salmon and
prevent the latter from escaping into open water?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that the European Patent Office
has issued a patent for a transgenic fish obtained by incorporating a chimeric gene of non-human origin.

It should be noted that the European Patent Organisation, whose Office issues European patents which are
international organisation over which the
intended to become national patents,
Community has no direct control.

is an independent

Directive 98/44/EC authorises the issue of patents on animals provided that the technical implementation
of the invention is not confined to a particular animal variety. A patent can therefore be issued only if the
claimed invention can be applied to all types of existing fish.

From this point of view, the patent in question seems to comply with the relevant provisions of patent law
and, in particular, with the law concerning biotechnological inventions.

The Commission intends to closely monitor developments in the field of biotechnology and will not fail to
report on these to the Parliament, especially in the annual report stipulated by Directive 98/44/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological
inventions (1).

It has to be underlined that the granting of a patent does not by any means authorise its use for deliberate
release of fish. The question of deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified salmon has
been raised previously and the Honourable Member is referred to the answers it gave to Written Questions
E-2223/00 by Mrs Patrie (2), E-1627/00 by Mr Maat (3) and E-1489/00 by Mr Meijer (4).

C 115 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

A legislative framework exists to protect non-genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from adverse effects.
A comprehensive assessment of risk to human health and the environment is required under Council
Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically
modified organisms (5) and authorisation would only be granted on the basis that there is no reason to
believe that adverse effects would occur under the conditions of consent. The Environmental Risk
Assessment required under this Directive has to take into account potentially harmful effects such as:
effects on population dynamics within the receiving environment; the uncontrolled spread of the GMO(s)
in the environment and the interaction between the non-modified organism and the GMO. There have
been no applications for releases of genetically modified salmon under the above Directive.

The biotechnology consultation document available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/biotechnology contains a
detailed review of GMO regulations in Chapter 7.1. This outlines the existing and planned horizontal
legislative framework comprising Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March
2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing
Council Directive 90/220/EEC (cid:30) Commission Declaration (6) which will replace Directive 90/220/EEC in
October 2002. Even more prescriptive requirements will be introduced for Environmental Risk Assessment
under Directive 2001/18/EC. Under the legislative proposals adopted more recently by the Commission (7)
a ‘one-door-one key’ procedure is planned for evaluation of GMO applications intended for food or feed
uses, including deliberate release into the environment. This procedure would consist of a single scientific
assessment, carried out by the scientific committees of the future European Food Authority, followed by a
single decision by the Community.

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.
(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
(3) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001.
(4) OJ C 113, 18.4.2001.
(5) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(6) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(7) OJ C 304 E, 30.10.2001 (COM(2001) 182 final and COM(2001) 425 final.

(2002/C 115 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2832/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 October 2001)

Subject: Outstanding payments to teachers in public vocational

training institutes and the second

Community Support Framework

Some 10 000 teachers paid on an hourly basis who worked in public vocational training institutes in
Greece have not yet received their outstanding pay for 15 months work.

Given that the public vocational training institutes are mainly funded from the European Social Fund
1.
through subprogramme 2.1 of the operational programme for education and initial vocational training,
why have the teachers not yet been paid?

In the light of the rumours that the money has been misappropriated, what information does the

2.
Commission have available?

3. What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the teachers are paid as promptly as
possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

Initial vocational training was indeed an action supported by the European Structural Fund and included in
the operational programme ‘Education and Initial Vocational Training’ of the Greek Community Support