WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04 by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives.
Date: 2004-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, domestic animal, explosive, operation of the Institutions, postal service, public safety

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/169

Measure 1.1 of the said operational programme provided appropriations for:

(cid:1) the creation of building infrastructure and the procurement of related equipment to meet the needs of

postgraduate education and vocational training within hospitals,

(cid:1) the procurement of hospital and other scientific equipment for hospitals of which the (new or

upgraded) building infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes,

(cid:1) the procurement of equipment for the psychiatric departments of new hospitals of which the building
infrastructure was funded under the regional operational programmes and the psychiatric units
developed in existing first degree health care centres.

According to information received from the Greek authorities, the most accurate information available
regarding the number of intensive care units in Greece is as follows. By the end of 1993 the intensive care
units of all hospitals in Greece had 789 beds. Today, the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece have
1 360 beds. Apart from very few exceptions, all of these beds are in operation. By the end of June 2004,
the intensive care units of all hospitals in Greece will have 1 466 beds.

(2004/C 84 E/0207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0159/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Trial of women for illegal abortion in Portugal

In the town of Aveiro in Portugal, a trial is being held of women who have undergone termination of
pregnancy. Despite the appeals and resolutions of the European Parliament calling on the governments of
the Member States to refrain under any circumstances from prosecuting women who have had an illegal
abortion, Portugal continues to enforce its criminal legislation prohibiting abortion, which is not consistent
with the fundamental rights of women.

Given the differences in sexual and reproductive health and related rights in the EU and within the
Member States and,
in particular, the enormous disparities among Europeans in terms of access to
reproductive health services, contraception and voluntary termination of pregnancy, and in view of the fact
that women and men should be free to take their own responsible decisions about their sexual and
reproductive health and rights, what measures will the Commission take to decriminalise abortion in the
EU so that women are not brought to trial for matters relating to their physical and mental integrity?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Honourable Member will recall from recommendation 13 of the Van Lancker report on sexual and
reproductive rights, which was adopted in July 2002 by the Parliament, that criminal law applying to
illegal abortion of national citizens is entirely a national competence of the Member States.

(2004/C 84 E/0208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0160/04

by Uma Aaltonen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Use in the EU institutions of sniffer dogs trained to detect explosives

The security mechanisms employed in the EU institutions have failed to detect the letter bombs sent to
senior officials over the last few weeks.

C 84 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether
in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks.
Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials’ desks without being inspected by a real professional
in this sphere (cid:1) a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can
beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and
mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was
used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

(cid:1) Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions?

(cid:1) Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives?

(cid:1) Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in

particular when it comes to checking items of mail?

(cid:1) Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional
working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other
Institutions.
The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities
if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems
because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does
not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for
other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This
working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.

(2004/C 84 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: National immigration plans

In its endeavour to implement the decisions taken at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 concerning
‘a common asylum and migration policy’, the Commission requested the Member States to draw up and
submit national migration plans.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have the Member States submitted their national migration plans?

2. Has the Greek Government submitted the Greek migration plan? If so, does the Commission have any

comments to make in that respect?