WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Construction of a housing complex on the coast at Vaya on the island of Serifos.
Date: 2002-04-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, coastal protection, countryside conservation, environmental law, environmental protection, property development, protected area

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/105

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Since a complete ban on the production, use, trade and import of those furs (cid:1) as imposed by certain
Member States (cid:1) would apply regardless of the conditions under which the animals are kept and killed, it
is evident that such measures are not motivated by solely animal welfare concerns. The motivation is
primarily an ethical question, whether to use products derived from animals which are mainly regarded as
companion animals.

This specific motivation raises the question as to whether the Community is limited to act by the principle
of subsidiarity. A measure, which aims mainly to protect public morality, could indeed be seen as lying
within the competence of the Member States.

The necessity of any regulation in this matter depends on the appreciation of dogs and cats in society
which might vary in the Member States. A restriction of trade is only justified when the use of products
derived from such animals are regarded as an breach of public morality.

Possible animal welfare concerns related to the production of fur in the Union is already covered by
Community legislation. The Community adopted Council Directives 98/58/EC (1) and 93/119/EEC (2),
which apply to all animals reared for commercial purposes, including the production of fur. Furthermore,
in the framework of the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes, recommendations concerning fur animals were adopted in 1999. However, the applicability of
these measures to third countries outside the Union and the Council of Europe is clearly limited. Therefore,
the Commission does not intend to propose regulations on the trade in dog and cat furs, leaving the
decision to take measures to the individual Member States.

(1) Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes,

OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2) Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing,

OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

(2002/C 301 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1209/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Construction of a housing complex on the coast at Vaya on the island of Serifos

Local residents on the island of Serifos have complained that a housing complex is under construction on
the coast at Vaya.

Since:

(cid:1) the coastal area at Vaya has been incorporated in the Natura 2000 network,

(cid:1) it is situated on an island which Greece has designated an area of exceptional natural beauty,

(cid:1) it has been described as an area of exceptional ecological value because of its sand dunes and

vegetation in a report drawn up by a group of planners,

(cid:1) a draft Presidential Decree ‘laying down restrictions and specific conditions governing construction for
the protection of the landscape in areas not covered by building plans’ makes specific reference to this
coastal area, banning any form of intervention within a distance of 200 metres from the coastline,

C 301 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(cid:1) under the terms of the Commission’s communication (1) on the implementation in Europe of the
integrated management of coastal zones, the Member States are called upon to draw up a national
strategy to promote the integrated management of coastal zones,

can the Council examine to what extent such activities are permissible in the area concerned and provide
assurances that it will intercede with the Greek authorities to find a solution based on sound and balanced
management of this ecosystem which is so important to the island of Serifos?

(1) SEC/2001/0021 (cid:1) COD 2000/0227.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

According to the information at the Commission’s disposal, the southern part of the island of Serifos has
been proposed by the Greek authorities, under code GR4220009, as a site of Community importance
under the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (1). With a view to inclusion of the site in the European ecological
network Natura 2000, the Greek authorities must ensure that the activities undertaken there do not lead to
a deterioration of the site.

However, the information provided by the Honourable Member does not allow the Commission to
pinpoint the precise location of the beach at Vaya and thus be able to verify whether Greece has complied
with its obligations under Community environment legislation.

For this reason, the Commission calls on the Honourable Member to forward all the relevant information
in his possession so that it can examine whether the project in question is incompatible in any way with
the value of the site in terms of nature conservation.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 301 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1212/02

by James Provan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Subject: Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy

Will the Commission agree to consider the submission from the UK’s Recreational Sea Angling (RSA)
group with reference to the depletion of fish stocks in our seas, and agree to consider their suggestions for
policies and management of fish stocks?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the importance of sea angling and its contribution to the well-being of
certain coastal areas. However, the Commission believes that sea angling, in general terms, would be best
managed by Member States, on the basis of their proximity to the activity and the general absence, in
many cases, of a clear transnational dimension to this activity.

However, this does not mean that the Community should overlook such activity. In some cases, it is clear
that angling may have a Community dimension, for example where the species being caught are already
managed by the Community or in other cases where anglers’ contribution to the fishing mortality of
certain fish stocks may be non-negligible.
In such cases, the Commission believes that Community
intervention may be necessary and Member States may be required to take measures in respect of sea
angling that reflect Community policy needs.