WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/03 by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission. Use of metal detectors in archaeology.
Date: 2003-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, archaeology, electro-magnetic equipment, legal basis, metals

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/275

(2004/C 78 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/03

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Transportation of horses from Romania to Italy

Would the Commission explain why, in the light of its own findings of violations of the law and great
cruelty to the animals involved in the transportation of horses from Romania to Italy, it does not suspend
this trade until certain legal requirements are met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission shares the concerns expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the findings of the
Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) missions carried out in Romania in November 2002 and June 2003 (1)
on the operation of controls on the export of live horses to the Union.

In the light of these findings, the Commission took urgent contact with the Romanian authorities to agree
the corrective actions required to remedy the deficiencies identified. On two occasions in 2003, the Deputy
Director- General for Health and Consumer Protection met a representative of the Mission of Romania to
the Union. At each meeting, the question of Romanian horses exported to the Union was raised.

It should be noted that the Commission has presently no legal basis to intervene in the welfare conditions
in which horses are kept and transported in Romania. However, the Commission is committed to take all
possible actions in this regard to remedy the most critical situations reported.

Concerning the veterinary certification of horses exported to the Union, a mission to Romania took place
from 6 to 10 October 2003. The preliminary findings of this mission indicate that progress is under way
as regards the identification of horses infected by Equine Infectious Anaemia and that the Romanian
authorities are continuing to make real efforts to correct the deficiencies identified.

The number of FVO missions to Romania performed in relation to animal health issues indicates the
degree to which the Commission is committed to rapidly improve the current situation.

The Commission will continue to collaborate closely with the Romanian authorities to ensure that any
remaining deficiencies are addressed and that measures are taken to avoid a recurrence of such problems.
The need for further action, such as evoked by the Honourable Member, will be considered in the light of
progress achieved by the Romanian authorities.

(1)

Inspection reports are registered under DG (SANCO)/8675/2002 and DG(SANCO)9226/2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/03

by Karin Junker (PSE) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: Use of metal detectors in archaeology

The use of metal detectors in the field of archaeology, controversial among experts, is subject to different
rules in the various EU Member States. With the entry of a further 10 countries in May 2004, the
differences will be even greater. In some Member States, it is already an offence to possess some kinds of
metal probes, while in others it is not, leading to differing legal situations in the individual Member States.

C 78 E/276

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

What are the various rules in the Member States? Does a Community legal basis exist in this area? If not,
does the Commission feel it necessary, bearing in mind the subsidiarity principle, to assess the situation
with the aim of harmonising the rules in the Member States by means of European rules? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission has no competence regarding the use of metal-detectors in the field of archaeology. In
order to obtain information on the use of these devices in the various Member States, the Honourable
Member should therefore contact the competent national authorities directly.

At Community level, the EC Treaty does not provide any legal basis for the adoption of rules on the use of
metal-detectors in the field of archaeology.

The Commission therefore does not intend to consider and/or propose any provisions at European level to
regulate this field of activity.

Article 151 of the EC Treaty empowers the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States
in the field of culture but specifically rules out ‘any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the
Member States’.

(2004/C 78 E/0278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3388/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 November 2003)

Subject: The gradual downgrading of the role played by national central banks following the establishment
the production and distribution of

the ECB and the implications for the prevention of

of
counterfeit money

1.
Can the Commission confirm that in the 12 EU Member States which have introduced the euro as
legal tender the number of people employed by national central banks, which were previously responsible
for matters relating to the circulation of currency, has fallen substantially since 1998 and is set to fall
much further over coming years?

2. What percentage of these lost jobs are being transferred to the European Central Bank, what
percentage are being transferred to private firms or firms set to be privatised, and what percentage are
disappearing completely as a result of the hiving-off of tasks or computerisation?

3.
Can the Commission state what tasks national central banks will still be responsible for performing
in, respectively, 2010, 2015 and 2020 and what tasks they will then no longer be required to carry out?
How will the latter tasks be taken care of?

4. Will this downgrading of the role played by national central banks ultimately leave them as nothing
more than local branches of the ECB? When does the Commission expect this process to be completed?

5.
Does the ECB or do other institutions compare national central banks with each other in terms of
their staffing levels, and is this leading to competition to determine which bank can manage with the
smallest possible staff? Do these comparisons take account of the volume of tasks performed thus far by
national central banks, which differs from Member State to Member State?