WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/01 by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission. Chimpanzee testing at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands.
Date: 2001-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Netherlands, amendment of a law, animal experimentation, animal welfare, monkey, protection of animals

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/101

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

On 19 December 2001 the Commission adopted the Alpine Area programme under
the
Interreg III Community Initiative (strand B). It provides Community part-financing (€ 59,7 million) for
transnational cooperation between Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia and Switzer-
land (1).

The four cooperation priorities established in partnership with the national and regional authorities
involved in the programme are:

/ promotion of the Alpine area (within the wider framework of polycentric spatial development of the

Community) as competitive and attractive on two fronts: economy and quality of life;

/ development of sustainable transport systems focused on efficiency, intermodality and accessibility;

/ prudent management of the natural and cultural heritage; environmental promotion and prevention of

natural disasters;

/ technical assistance.

The allotted funds may be used throughout the cooperation zone defined in the programme for operations
approved by the national and regional authorities acting through a management committee that satisfy the
programme terms. Under the Interreg III guidelines (2) no part of the cooperation zone, whether or not
mountainous, may be excluded from eligibility for part-financing. In any case one of the benefits of such a
programme is the integration and territorial cohesion it promotes of mountain areas and the surrounding
valleys and plains.

(1) COM(2001)4017.
(2) Commission communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 setting guidelines for a Community Initiative
concerning trans-European cooperation intended to encourage harmonious and balanced development of the
European territory / Interreg III, OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.

(2002/C 160 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3351/01

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Subject: Chimpanzee testing at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands

The Commission has consistently stated that ‘All research in Europe involving the use of animals is subject
to Council Directive 86/609/EEC’ (1) (Answer to Written Question P-1813/01 (2), among others). In that
document, recommendations for the care of animals on which experiments have been discontinued seems
to be limited to Article 9 which states that, at the end of an experiment, a decision should be made on
‘whether the animal should be kept alive or killed by humane method, subject to the condition that it shall
not be kept alive if … it is likely to remain in lasting pain or distress’. The Council Directive goes on to
insist that, after experiments have ended, animals must continue to be kept in living conditions which
satisfy the requirements of Article 5.

In the case of the chimpanzee colony at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in the Netherlands, some
newspaper reports have suggested that up to 46 chimpanzees have been sent to ‘zoos in Europe and
China’, where there is a chance they may be sent for further experimentation or breeding. If this is indeed
the case, what steps does the Commission consider that the competent authority in the Netherlands should
take in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of Articles 5 and 9 of Council Directive
86/609/EEC once the animals go to their new locations in Europe or in non-member states?

Does the Commission consider that there is any need to extend the scope of that Directive to cover the
welfare of animals who have been retired from experimentation in Europe?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 111.

C 160 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

On the basis of the information supplied, the Commission will write to the Dutch authorities requesting
clarification and further information on this issue.

With regard to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used
for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission is planning a revision of the Directive. This
revision will incorporate also initiatives in the area of the use of non-human primates. The extension of
the scope of the Directive to cover the welfare of animals who are no longer part of experimentation will
be examined during the revision.

(2002/C 160 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3358/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(7 December 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA

We have gathered from press reports that the United States of America and the European Union are
pursuing an agreement that would pave the way for the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA
under the new European arrest warrant by ensuring that the death penalty would not be applied in certain
cases. We have also taken note of the global assurances given by the US Ambassador to the EU,
Mr Rockwell Schnabel, that the death penalty would not be applied to suspected terrorists extradited from
Europe; however, with regard to that matter, the US Ambassador emphasised the need for some countries
‘to change things, including their constitutions’ and added that ‘there is agreement to pursue that’.

Bearing in mind that opposition to the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles of the EU,
enshrined as it is in the constitutions and in the specific laws of many of its Member States, and that the
new powers conferred on the President of
the United States since 11 September 2001 (including
entrusting military courts with jurisdiction, in summary proceedings, over foreigners suspected of terrorist
activities) would nullify any assurances given by State or Federal authorities of the USA, would the Council
clarify the juridical nature and the scope of the negotiations with the USA going on in such a context and
restate its determination not to enter any agreement which would compromise,
limit or modify EU
opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances, particularly those involving emergency
extradition procedures?

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The Council agreed (see conclusion III.7 of 20 September 2001) on the principle of proposing to the
United States that an agreement be negotiated between the European Union and the United States, on the
basis of Article 38 of the TEU, in the field of penal cooperation on terrorism.

Shortly thereafter, Prime Minister Verhofstadt, together with Commission President Prodi, visited the
United States. On that occasion, President Bush expressed a wish to continue discussions and,
in a
subsequent letter that has been rendered public, specified some of his thoughts on the issue.

The Presidency has since then, in accordance with the wish of the Council, been conducting exploratory
talks with our US partners, with a view to gaining a better understanding of the added value that any
agreement in the field of penal cooperation on terrorism might give. These exploratory talks have not yet
been completed.