WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/01 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Sale and distribution of animal medicines in the EU.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal health, animal product, consumer protection, health risk, marketing, pharmaceutical legislation, veterinary drug, veterinary legislation

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/209

Strangely enough, the document drawn up by the Barajas police states, on the one hand, that this
Portuguese citizen had presented himself with a passport, but adds that the latter did not meet the existing
legislation for entry to Spain’s requirement that a valid document be submitted.

While one can understand the need for rigorous controls at the Community’s external borders, it is rather
difficult to understand the attitude of a police force which declares documents issued by other EU Member
States be invalid.

I would therefore ask the Commission what it intends to do to ensure that the creation of an area of
security does not overwhelm the area of freedom and justice which we are supposed to be setting up
within the Community.

With regard to the Portuguese citizen under discussion, what action does the Commission think should be
taken to ensure that he is compensated for the prejudice suffered as a result of the action taken by the
Spanish police?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2001)

The Commission will make the necessary contacts with the Spanish authorities in order to obtain full
details of the case described by the Honourable Member. Where appropriate, it will examine the file in the
light of the procedure of Article 226 (former Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

(2002/C 93 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2913/01

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Sale and distribution of animal medicines in the EU

Does the Commission have plans to control or restrict the sale and distribution of animal medicines
throughout the EU?

If so, what is the Commission intending to propose?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

In the framework of the current revision of the pharmaceutical legislation, the Commission decided to
propose amendments to Directive 2001/82/EC (1) some of which concern Title VI, dealing with the
possession, distribution and dispensing of veterinary medicinal products. The main objective of this part of
the amendments is to ensure consumer protection in association with maximum benefit for animal health
and welfare.

As a contribution to the protection of the consumer against exposure to possible harmful levels of residues
in food of animal origin, the Commission proposal now clearly spells out that a veterinary prescription is
required for all veterinary medicinal products used in food producing animals. Moreover, it aligns the
requirements for record keeping imposed on owners or keepers of food producing animals and on holders
of a authorisation for retail distribution with the relevant provisions of Directive 96/23/EC (2) on residue
control. Additionally wholesale distributors are required to maintain an emergency plan for the effective
recall of a batch of a veterinary medicinal product should it become necessary.

C 93 E/210

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

While the above-mentioned proposals are intended to clarify and complement certain provisions of Title
VI of Directive 2001/82/EC, no changes have been proposed to the existing rules on retail distribution
permitting only authorised persons to engage in such operations under the legislation of the Member
States.

(1) Parliament and Council Directive 2001/82/EC of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary

medicinal products, OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in
live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC
and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(2002/C 93 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2930/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Pollution from the Carling chemicals plant in Völklingen-Lauterbach

Constant pollution from the French Carling chemicals plant is endangering the health of the population of
Lauterbach in Saarland, as confirmed in a report by the Saarland technical control centre commissioned by
the Environment Ministry.

The following types of pollution were documented:

B odorous emissions exceeding the permitted levels for residential areas, which are harmful to health

and obnoxious,

B contamination of the Lauterbach, particularly at weekends,

B noise disturbance exceeding the permitted levels (50dB/A) from the Carling power plant,

B air pollution.

Despite numerous requests, the people of Lauterbach have received no information concerning pollution
from either the French firms located there or from the French authorities. Efforts by the German
authorities to obtain information have been to no avail.

In the Commission’s view, has there not been an infringement of the obligation on the French firms

1.
and authorities to provide information?

If so, what initiatives will the Commission take to ensure compliance with the obligation to provide

2.
information in the event of cross-border pollution?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that from the information provided in her
question it appears quite possible that the French authorities have failed to meet their obligations arising
out of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment (1).

This directive, which does not impose any obligation on industrial companies that are the cause of any
pollution, requires in particular that public authorities make available any information relating to the
environment to any natural or legal person at his request.

The Commission will shortly be questioning the French authorities regarding their obligations in the case
raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.