WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Applicability in EU Member States of the Swiss campaign to protect babies against shaking.
Date: 2002-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: child protection, early childhood, information, public awareness campaign, public health

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/195

The case referred to by the Honourable Member involves a carrier established in Italy. Consequently, in
accordance with the Community rules concerning the licence to operate a regular service for the carriage
of passengers by coach and bus between Member States, on the one hand, and the Community licence, on
the other, these two documents should be drawn up in Italian.

In this particular instance,
constitutes a breach of Community law.

insistence that the licence should be drawn up in the German language

The Commission intends to demand an explanation from the German authorities.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 (OJ L 74, 20.3.1992), as amended by Council Regulation

(EC) No 11/98 of 11 December 1997 (OJ L 4, 8.1.1998).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2121/98 of 2 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulations (EEC) No 684/92 and (EC) No 12/98 as regards documents for the carriage of passengers by
coach and bus (OJ L 268, 3.10.1998).

(2002/C 172 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0414/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Applicability in EU Member States of the Swiss campaign to protect babies against shaking

1.
Is the Commission aware that, in Switzerland, it has been found that stressed parents sometimes
shake crying babies without intending them any harm, but that because babies’ neck muscles are not yet
sufficiently developed, a quarter of them die and three quarters suffer irreversible harm?

Does the Commission have any comparable data for EU Member States, or can it obtain national

2.
data, indicating that a problem similar to that identified in Switzerland exists here?

Is the Commission aware of the national campaign ‘Schütteln Sie nie ein Baby’, which is now being

3.
carried out in Switzerland in response to publicity about the data referred to in question 1?

How does the Commission believe that it can help to draw similar attention to this problem and to

4.
prevent further harm to young children in the fifteen EU Member States?

Source: Radio 1 News, the Netherlands, 25 January 2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’, and of international studies concerning this

1.
topic and the Swiss report on the epidemiology of this problem.

2.
In the Community, there are no comparable incidence data. A study was made (Ludwig Bolttzmann
Institut für kinderchirurgische Forschung) of an Austrian hospital (’Sozial Medizinisches Zentrum’ (SMZ)
Ost, Vienna) where, retrospectively, medical records have been analysed. Of about 30 000 attendances to
the paediatric surgical outpatient clinic, 45 cases were due to child abuse and, out of them, two were
probably due to ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome’. The Swiss report states: ‘Typically babies with an average age of
about five months are concerned.’

The relation of boys to girls amounts to 3:2. The actors are in 75 % of the cases men; in 50 % of the cases
the parents were responsible for the shaking, partners of the mother and babysitters for 17 %. According

C 172 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

to American Studies, about ¼ of the children traumatised due to shaking die days to weeks after the event.
Of those surviving, according to the American sources, ¾ have permanent damage’.

3.
The Commission is aware of the Swiss activities, and is in contact with the Swiss institutions
involved. There are also activities in Member States, for example the provision of information material to
parents in Germany, in Scotland, and in France.

4.
The New Public Health Programme, which will probably be adopted later in 2002, has as one of its
main objectives to ‘Address health determinants through health promotion and prevention of disease’.
Dealing with the prevention of child abuse will be one of the operational targets that the Commission will
propose to the future Programme Committee.

(2002/C 172 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0417/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: The dwarf tapeworm and the free movement of animals within the Union

In its answer to my question E-3988/00 (1) concerning the possibility of an exemption for Sweden on this
matter, the Commission wrote that one would be possible. Article 8 of the Commission proposal provides
that a Member State may obtain additional guarantees where justified by a particular situation. Sweden’s
application for an exemption would be dealt with on the basis of this article, but the Commission does not
state whether it considers that Sweden should be granted an exemption on the grounds of the supreme
importance of the deworming requirement for keeping the dwarf tapeworm out of Sweden.

In the issue of Aftonbladet of 20 January 2002, the Swedish Minister of Agriculture, Margareta Winberg,
referred to the delays in obtaining a Swedish exemption for the deworming requirement for animals
entering Sweden.

What is the Commission’s actual view? Can Sweden or can it not obtain an exemption for compulsory
deworming of animals?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 209.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

In its answer to written question E-3988/00 (1), the Commission pointed out that the Echinococcus
problem linked to the movement of carnivores to Sweden could be solved by Sweden making use of the
possibilities offered by Article 8 of the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals (2).

Moreover, Parliament considered that the provisions of this Article offered sufficient guarantees for the
three Member States concerned (Ireland, United Kingdom and Sweden), as no amendments on this issue
had been tabled at the plenary session of Parliament on 2 and 3 May 2001.

Usually, the Commission thinks it appropriate to contemplate exemptions to a general rule, particularly
concerning matters related to movements between Member States, only when this is in compliance with
specific principles, namely those described in the above-mentioned Article 8. This approach avoids an
increase in exceptional arrangements that are not sufficiently justified.