WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/04 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission. OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases.
Date: 2004-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: World Organisation for Animal Health, foot-and-mouth disease, the EU's international role, vaccination, veterinary legislation

C 88 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

On 12 July 2003, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC (3) limiting the exposure of the
general public to electromagnetic fields in view of ensuring a high level of health protection. The
recommended maximum limits are based on the guidelines established by the International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and endorsed by the Scientific Steering Committee of
the
Commission. Full adherence to the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation
ensures that the public is provided with a high level of protection against both acute and long-term effects
of non-ionising radiation across the whole spectrum. At the same time, the Commission is closely
following and financing research in this area and will react, if necessary, to any new scientific evidence not
yet taken into consideration.

The responsibility for integrating the provisions of the Recommendation mentioned above into national
law lies with Member States. The issue should therefore be taken up with the relevant national authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases

(1 April 2004)

From 13 to 16 April 2004 the OIE will organise an international conference in Buenos Aires on
vaccination against animal diseases.

1. Will the European Commission base its contribution to this conference on the report and resolution
of the European Parliament’s temporary committee on foot-and-mouth disease? If not, what will
its
contribution be?

2.
Is the European Commission, together with the EU Member States, prepared to enforce, within the
framework of the OIE, a policy that does not differentiate between protective emergency vaccination
(whereby the vaccinated animals are kept alive) on the one hand and suppressive emergency vaccination
and / or preventive culling on the other?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Members of
its participation in and contribution to the
International Conference on the Control of Animal Infectious Diseases by Vaccination, held in Buenos
Aires on 13 to 16 April 2004.

At the request of the organising committee, the Commission representative is delivering a paper on: ‘The
use of antigen and vaccine banks in case of emergency vaccination in the European Community’ and was
invited to chair the Section on ‘Antigen and vaccine banks as a safety measure for insuring control of
disease spread’.

The paper is focused on the integration of emergency vaccination in the complex of measures to be
implemented in the case of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). It refers to the needs for
contingency planning and explains the Community antigen bank within this context. One of
the
conclusions should be to raise awareness in countries practicing vaccination that highly purified vaccines
and sufficiently sensitive and specific tests for the detection of antibodies against non-structural proteins
are essential prerequisites to substantiate any claim for absence of virus circulation following the use of
vaccination. In addition, surveillance conducted for that purpose should at least meet the requirements of
the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) and should include a thorough follow-up of and decisive
actions in relation to herds which had been in contact with the virus.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/269

The Commission contribution is based on Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September 2003 on Community
measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (1), which reflects the lessons learned from the 2001
outbreak, the resolution of the Parliament of 13 December 2002 and the conditions for recovery of the
disease and infection free status as laid down in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OIE.

With regard to the differentiation between protective vaccination to live and suppressive vaccination to
kill, the Commission wishes to reiterate that the latter is part of a stamping-out procedure applied in
infected or contaminated herds. However, where the different strategies are concerned with phasing out
protective vaccination, i.e. regaining disease- and infection-free status three months after the slaughter for
human consumption of the vaccinated animals as opposed to six months where the vaccinates remain
alive, the Commission wishes to draw attention to Article 62 of the above Directive which provides for a
derogation from the waiting period in the light of the outcome of the post-vaccination surveillance.

The Commission maintains its position that
the internationally accepted requirements for regaining
freedom from disease and infection following the resort to emergency vaccination must provide a high
level of security. Taking into account the biology of the virus and the epidemiology of the disease, any fast
track recovery of disease- and infection-free status may seriously enhance the risk of introducing FMD
virus with products of animal origin. In line with the recommendations in the report of the Temporary
Committee on FMD of the Parliament, the Commission is bound to minimise such risks while complying
with commitments the Community has made in the framework of international trade agreements.

(1) OJ L 306, 22.11.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1009/04

by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(25 March 2004)

Subject: Lobau motorway

The EIA Directive (97/11/EC (1)) requires EU Member States to carry out an assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment. An assessment of this kind is required also in the
case of motorways and express roads, pursuant to Annex I of the Directive. In Austria, consent for
motorways is granted by the issuing of decrees known as Trassenverordnungen,
in accordance with
Section 4 of the Austrian Highways Act. This means that consent for a project of this kind is given not on
the basis of specific information but by a general and abstract decree.

The European Court of Justice has ruled (Case C-287/98) that,
in connection with an environmental
impact assessment, while authorisation may be granted in principle by an individual piece of national
legislation, the details of a particular project must also be authorised by the relevant law or the decree.

The Austrian Constitutional Court has ruled, in a recent judgment on the Vienna orbital express road, that
a Trassenverordnung cannot, by its legal nature, include any kind of subsidiary provisions (conditions) to
meet the requirements set out by the EIA law for the authorisation of the project submitted. The Court
further stated that, in the case of decrees of this kind, consideration of the findings of the environmental
impact assessment was not binding.

Does the Commission deem that this method of authorising the construction of motorways, on the basis
of decrees that cannot guarantee that the findings of an environmental impact assessment will be taken
into account, is compatible with the EIA Directive?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.