WRITTEN QUESTION P-0336/04 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Embryo research financed from the EU budget.
Date: 2004-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU research policy, bio-ethics, embryo and foetus, genetic engineering, interinstitutional relations (EU), power of decision, research expenditure (EU)

C 84 E/364

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Directive 2002/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 setting up a Community
4.
vessel traffic and information system (1) includes provisions concerning notification of ships’ movements
and their cargoes. In particular, it requires operators of vessels leaving a port in the Community to notify
the competent port authority and to provide certain pieces of information, including the correct technical
names of the dangerous or polluting goods as well as the United Nations (UN) numbers or International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) hazard classes.

The Commission cannot have a formal position on a third party’s alleged comments on TV or in the press.
Nevertheless, it has to be noted that the authorisation to leave a port is an exclusive competence of the
authorities of the Member States.

The nomenclature for chemicals has been internationally agreed for decades under the rules of the
5.
International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
In addition, CAS numbers (Chemical
Abstracts Services) and EC numbers provide assistance in identifying chemicals. The EU uses such
including for arsenic acid and arsenic
nomenclature and numbering systems for dangerous chemicals,
pentoxide.

(1) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0422)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0336/04

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Embryo research financed from the EU budget

(4 February 2004)

1. Why did the Commission,
in the person of Mr Busquin, agree to the Portuguese compromise
proposal, but later call it a misunderstanding? What prompted the Commissioner to withdraw his initial
agreement?

2.
Does the Commission agree that the moratorium was agreed upon because differing views on
ethically controversial issues cannot be handled in exactly the same way as other disagreements in the
Council, so that a compromise must be found to which all the Member States can agree?

3.
Can the author of this question assume that the statement made by Commission President Prodi on
11 December 2002 to Bundestag President Thierse to the effect that it is for the Council to take the
decision on embryo research is correct, and cannot be overruled by the individual opinions of a
Commissioner who thinks differently?

4.
In view of the rising number of ethically controversial issues, should consideration not be given to
disregarding European Union measures when the Member States are not unanimous in their responses to
ethical questions?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Honourable Member appears to be referring to informal discussions of a purely exploratory
the Council of Ministers of 26 November 2003. The

1.
nature which took place in the margins of
Commission has defended its proposal throughout the legislative procedure.

The Commission does not agree with this interpretation and would point out that decisions on these

2.
issues need to be taken in accordance with the qualified majority rules.

3.
The Council was due to decide on this matter and the Commission can only lament the failure to
reach a decision on this item on 3 December 2003. Nonetheless, the Commission proposal remains on the
Council’s table.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/365

This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union’s competence to
4.
determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003,
expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem
cells from human embryos (1).

(1) http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CAL-
DOC&FILE=20031119&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LAST-
CHAP=12&SDOCTA=10&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1

(2004/C 84 E/0423)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0339/04

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Wind turbines

Although wind power has been called into question in the countries in which it originated (including
Germany and Denmark), numerous wind power projects are being developed in France.

Recent scientific reports would seem to indicate that in Germany almost 500 000 birds are killed by wind
turbines every year.

Does the Commission have in its possession serious scientific studies on the environmental impact of these
wind turbines, including their impact on migratory birds?

Furthermore, in the light of the information available to the Commission, is the installation of these wind
turbines compatible with the conservation of migratory bird populations, not least as they are installed on
migration paths and in wintering areas and sensitive breeding grounds?

Under these circumstances, is the operator obliged to comply with a precise set of specifications endorsed
by the European Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is aware that there are concerns about the potential conflicts between wind farm
developments and nature conservation objectives in certain areas, especially in relation to wild birds.
Different studies have identified potential hazards such as disturbance, collision mortality and direct loss of
habitat arising from such developments (1).

The compatibility of wind farm developments with the requirement of bird protection under EU nature
legislation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. The existing knowledge does suggest that the
concerns raised by the Honourable Member may be significant especially where sites proposed are on
recognised bird migration routes.

Any proposed wind farm project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment must be
subject to an environmental impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive
97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). Such an impact assessment should identify, describe and assess the direct
effects of a project on, inter alia, flora and fauna.

Where the development may affect a Natura 2000 area (3) the project must be subject to an assessment in
accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC. This provides substantive and
procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites
unless they can be justified, in the absence of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest.
Where the site hosts priority species or habitat
the only
considerations that may be raised are those of human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of

types listed under Directive 92/43/EEC,