WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Camarles monkey farm.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, animal experimentation, animal welfare, livestock farming, monkey, protected species, protection of animals, trade restriction

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/79

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Having studied the information available, the Commission concluded that the Spanish authorities had
correctly applied the provisions of Community environmental law with regard to the plan to enlarge the
Campomanes port in Altea. The Commission noted that an environmental impact assessment had been
carried out. The results of the assessment do not show that there will be a significant effect on the Site of
Community Importance (SIC) proposed by the Spanish authorities for the Natura 2000 network, situated
nearby. Moreover, the project will affect only 1 % (between 10 and 15 hectares) of the priority habitat of
Community interest (posidonia beds) found on the site.

Insofar as the project concerned will not have any significant impact on the site, Community legislation
does not require the adoption of compensatory measures. Therefore, although it is aware of the technical
difficulties involved in transplanting posidonia beds, the Commission is unable to comment on the viability
of such a step, or to prejudge the validity of other measures envisaged by the Spanish authorities to reduce
the project’s environmental impact.

As already stated, the Spanish authorities found that the project would not have a significant impact on
the site following an impact assessment study which took particular account of Article 6(3) of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1). Under these conditions, and in accordance with the said Article 6(3), the Spanish authorities can
decide to authorise the project without adopting compensatory measures. Any other measures
subsequently adopted by the Spanish authorities to protect the site would go beyond the application of
Community law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Camarles monkey farm

The Centre de Recherches Primatologiques Ltd. has recently imported a total of 298 macaques for an
experimental farm in Camarles (Tarragona). The Commission has already been made aware of the problem
by Question E-2259/02 (1). These monkeys have been confiscated by the Catalan Generalitat’s Departament
de Medi Ambient, until such time as it can be guaranteed that they represent no threat of possible
contagion and risk of illness for the population, and likewise whether the activities carried out at the
Camarles farm are compatible with Catalan autonomous legislation.

However, despite the fact that the Spanish authorities have momentarily held back the permits for the
farm’s activities, while waiting for a final decision on the part of the Catalan autonomous government:

(cid:1) does the Commission not believe that by virtue of the provisions of Article 22 of the Directive 86/
609/EEC (2) on the unnecessary duplication of experiments on animals, it should approach the Spanish
authorities with regard to the operating plan of the envisaged installations, so as to guarantee that,
should the farm’s activities be carried out, they will respect this Directive;

(cid:1) is the Commission prepared to investigate the measures which both the research company and the
Spanish authorities have devised to ensure that Articles 5, 14 and 15 of the Directive are fully
complied with;

(cid:1) is the Commission aware of the fact that many of the imported macaques are of the macaca
fascicularis species, which comes under the CITES Red List, where it is classified as ‘almost threatened’?

C 84 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Does the Commission know that with regard to the ‘crab-catching macaque’, the other imported
species, the countries of origin (basically Malaysia and the Philippines) actually prohibited the export
of these animals?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 214.
(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

With regard to Article 22 of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the protection of
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes, the Commission has received no indication
that the provisions of this Article are not being met.

The application of Articles 5, 14 and 15, on the housing and care of the animals, education and training of
personnel, and conditions for approving breeding and supplying establishments, is the responsibility of the
national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that these provisions are not
complied with and thus has no basis for a Commission investigation.

The Commission is aware that the species in question, Macaca fascicularis, is listed on Appendix II of
CITES and the corresponding Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1). Import of such species into the
Community is only allowed when the country of origin has issued a valid export permit (thus respecting
the decision of some countries to ban exports) and when the Member State concerned, in consultation
with other Member States where appropriate, deems that the import does not pose a threat to the
conservation status of the species. In the present case, the information available to the Commission
indicates that the monkeys are not taken from any native wild populations. Therefore, subject to the
provision of export permits, the import is not in breach of CITES or Regulation (EC) No 338/97.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Community aid to the multinational Gerry Weber

The German-based multinational Gerry Weber formerly owned a textile manufacturing plant in Figueiró
dos Vinhos (Portugal), which employed some 150 workers until it closed early in 2003. This closure
occurred despite the plant reportedly being in receipt of Community funds in support of its operations.

The plant was subsequently bought up by another company, and operations recommenced in September.

The Commission:

1. Can itstate whether Gerry Weber received Community funds for its textile manufacturing plant in

Figueiró dos Vinhos (Portugal)?

2.

Should that be the case, what measures has Commission taken, or what measures will
following the decision by Gerry Weber Portugal Confecções, Lda to close the plant?

it take,