WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/03 by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Registration of cars to inflate sales figures.
Date: 2003-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising malpractice, application of EU law, competition law, consumer information, motor vehicle industry, restriction on competition, vehicle registration

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/183

(2003/C 268 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1273/03

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Resolution on the BPRC primate centre

(3 April 2003)

The resolution adopted as part of the European Parliament’s report A5-0440/2002 on the EU budget for
2003 (paragraph 13, Heading 3: Internal policies) contains the following passage:

Requests the Commission to delegate to the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods
the task of verifying whether all tests done at the BPRC are truly necessary and without alternative.
Expresses its determination to end the European funding for the BPRC if the ECVAM replies in the
negative and requests all new tests on humanoid primates to be cancelled pending this advice.

Has the Commission already taken action in response to this paragraph of the resolution by asking the
ECVAM for an opinion on financial support for the BPRC and when can the ECVAM’s opinion be
expected?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

In the context of the paragraph 3 of the resolution referred to in the question of the Honourable Member,
the Commission shares the view that the issue of alternative to tests with non-human primates is an
important one.

Whether or not all tests carried out in the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in the Netherlands
are truly necessary is, however, not to be judged by the Commission or the European Centre for the
Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the
protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes (1), provides in Article 7 that
‘an experiment shall not be performed if another scientifically satisfactory method of obtaining the result
sought, not entailing the use of an animal, is reasonably and practicably available.’ The Directive had to be
transposed into national legislation in 1989.

It is the responsibility of the Dutch authorities to control whether the experiments on non-human
primates carried out at the BPRC comply with the Dutch regulatory framework.

Concerning Community funding of research involving the use of non human primates the need and
justification for such experiments including the avalability of alternative methods are assessed during the
scientific evaluation. An ethical review has been implemented systematically under the 5th Framework
Programme for Research for proposals dealing with sensitive issues such as the use of non-human
primates. The ethical review ensures among others, that all research involving non human primates are
conducted in accordance with Directive 86/609/CEE on the protection of laboratory animals. The ethical
review panel includes, among others, representatives of animal welfare groups. The procedures have in
several cases lead to a reduction in the number of non-human primates and in one case to the replacement
by other animals. The ethical review at Community level does not replace the need for opinion or
authorisation by local ethics committees where this is required by national legislation.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2003/C 268 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/03

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Registration of cars to inflate sales figures

(7 April 2003)

We are hearing reports from the automobile sector of the following practice: quotas of cars are registered
temporarily in one of the Member States. They are then sold on within the EU, without actually been put
on the road, and then temporarily registered in another Member State.

C 268 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

This practice creates two major problems:

(cid:1) the consumer is given misleading information in car registration ranking lists. Car manufacturers or
dealers can artificially inflate the registration figures so that their cars appear at the top of the lists.

(cid:1) statistics (on replacement or greening of the vehicle fleet) are systematically distorted.

In my view, this practice clearly goes beyond national interests and requires a European response.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) whether it is aware of practices of this kind?

(cid:1) whether it intends to introduce measures to prevent or eliminate these practices?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 2003)

The Commission has no knowledge of the practices described by the Honourable Member.

It is not possible to conclude from the information provided by the Honourable Member that these
practices are contrary to the Community law currently in force. In specific cases, it is up to the national
authorities to initiate proceedings regarding the infringement of directive 84/450/EEC (1) if the consumer is
misled. In order to determine whether there is an infringement, the Court issued the necessary guidelines
in its judgment in Case C-373/90; Criminal proceedings against X (1992). At this stage, the Commission
does not intend to introduce measures to prevent or eliminate these practices.

The Commission will, nevertheless, carefully monitor developments in this field.

(1) Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and

administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2003/C 268 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1307/03

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Armillatox

Armillatox, a widely used treatment of honey fungus, is under a threat to be banned under forthcoming
EU legislation. However Armillatox is produced by low-temperature distillation and is considered by some
to leave little if any toxic residue.

Can the Commission confirm whether Armillatox is to be banned, or whether an exemption is being
considered, or has already been made, for this treatment?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Armillatox is a product containing a complex mixture of tar acids in castor oil. These tar acids are
considered as an active substance to be regulated under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). Their uses in plant protection were
notifiable under the procedure established in Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 (2). Since they
were not notified and were not accepted as an essential use, according to Commission Regulation (EC) No
2076/2002 (3), Member States are obliged to withdraw authorisations of plant protection products
containing them by 25 July 2003 and to limit the duration of any possible sell-out period to a maximum
of six months thereafter. Other uses of tar acids are not affected by the above Regulations.