WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/03 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Mass poisoning of stray animals in Zappeion Park.
Date: 2003-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, complaint to the Commission, domestic animal, environmental policy, protection of animals, toxic substance

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/189

2.

Is the UK policy contrary to EU policy as regards:

(a)

legality of policy and infringement of rights;

(b) effective freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The Honourable Member asks about the health care arrangements between the Member States for elderly
people. He asks whether the United Kingdom may refuse to make any contribution to the costs of nursing
care if an elderly person moves to another Member State, when a financial contribution would be made to
nursing costs in the United Kingdom.

It is not clear from the question to what contribution to nursing care costs it refers, and therefore whether
it falls within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the
Community (1) or not.

Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed
persons who have ceased their occupational activity (2) gives a right of residence in another Member State
to retired people.

However, this right of residence is subject to two conditions:

(cid:1) the person must have sufficient resources (pension) not to become a burden on the social assistance

system of the host Member State;

(cid:1) the person must have comprehensive sickness insurance.

In conclusion, without further information on the nursing care benefits mentioned by the Honourable
Member, the Commission is unable to say whether there is any infringement of Community law or policy.
If the Honourable Member could provide further information to the Commission this problem could be
assessed more accurately.

However, the Commission is aware of the fact that people who need nursing care and cannot afford to pay
for it out of their own pockets can be effectively barred from exercising the right of free movement.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

(2003/C 161 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0177/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Mass poisoning of stray animals in Zappeion Park

(30 January 2003)

Animal welfare and environmental organisations in Greece have condemned the mass killing of animals in
Zappeion Park which took place only a few days before the official ceremony inaugurating the Greek
Presidency and the meeting of the College of EU Commissioners in Zappeion Hall on 10 January 2003.
Dogs and cats which had been neutered and vaccinated by animal welfare organisations were killed by a
powerful poison, and traces of this poison have been found even in children’s playgrounds.

Given that similar practices have occurred in the past both in Athens and in other regions of Greece,
possibly with EU funding earmarked for the protection of strays (for instance, dog shelters), will the
Commission say whether it intends to investigate these allegations? What is the Commission’s overall view
of Greek policy on animal protection?

C 161 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Commission deplores all forms of cruelty towards and inhumane treatment and neglect of animals.
The welfare of stray dogs and cats is, however, a matter which falls entirely within the responsibility of the
Greek authorities and there is no legal basis for intervention by the Commission.

In areas of animal welfare which are subject to Community harmonisation and notably the protection of
animals during transport and at the time of slaughter or killing and the protection of farmed animals,
Greek implementation and enforcement is still, regrettably, deficient. This has been demonstrated by
mission reports of the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) and by many complaints received
from animal welfare organisations. The Commission is currently considering the results of a further FVO
mission, which took place between 13-17 January 2003.

(2003/C 161 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0183/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(24 January 2003)

Subject: Derogations concerning migratory birds

In the accession negotiations now under way the Commission has reportedly granted Malta derogations
concerning the spring hunting of migratory birds.

Is this true?

If so, on what terms have the derogations been granted?

Has France sought derogations concerning the hunting of migratory birds?

If so, what derogations are they and when can it hope to obtain them?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(14 February 2003)

The implementation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (1), hereafter referred to as the Birds Directive, has been negotiated in the framework of the accession
negotiations on the environment chapter with Malta. As regards spring hunting of migratory birds, it has
been agreed that Malta will fully implement, as from accession, the relevant parts of the Directive.
However, Article 9 of this Directive allows for exceptions under certain very stringent conditions. If Malta
wishes to allow spring hunting, it would need to ensure that all the requirements of Article 9 are met and
that any permitted hunting is carried out under ‘strictly supervised conditions’ and limited to ‘small
numbers’ only. Furthermore, the use of Article 9 is subject to monitoring by the Commission and Malta is
committed, where it chooses recourse to this Article, to report each year on its possible use.

Therefore, bird hunting in Malta can, as from accession, only take place within the limits provided for by
the Directive.

As regards the questions of the Honourable Member whether France has sought derogations concerning
the hunting of migratory birds, it should be recalled that Member States do not have to seek derogations
concerning hunting of protected birds. However, for the fixing of hunting seasons, France has based its
legislation on the provisions of Article 7(4) of the Birds Directive rather than making use of Article 9 to
derogate from the hunting provisions of Article 7 of the Birds Directive.