You are on page 1of 2

C 26 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.

2001

requirements are laid down in Council Directive 81/852/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member
States relating to analytical, pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the
testing of veterinary medicinal products (2). Furthermore, this Directive requires that medicines for animals
intended for food consumption contain only pharmacologically active substances that have positively been
evaluated. For these substances, residues have to be evaluated according to Council Regulation (EEC) no
2377/90 (3) and a withdrawal time has to be established, which determines when after the treatment food
products may be taken from the treated animals.

In the context of a general evaluation of the veterinary medicines approval system, the Commission has
recently started the process of evaluating the entire system of authorisation and supervision of medicinal
products in the Community. Based on this evaluation, a proposal for modifications to the existing system
will be made to the Council and Parliament in 2001.

Council Directive 91/414/EEC (4) on the placing of plant protection products on the market stipulates that
the authorisation of pesticides products is the responsibility of the Member States and that such
authorisations may only be made for those products containing pesticides active substances in Annex I
to the Directive. Detailed uniform principles for the authorisation of plant protection products are laid out
in Annex VI to the Directive and Member States are obliged to respect these principles when granting such
authorisations.

For those substances for which a Commission decision has been taken not to include them in Annex I to
the Directive, no authorisations may be made and existing authorisations must be rescinded. For those
active substances that were already on the market on 1 June 1993 and where a decision has not yet been
taken to include in or to exclude from Annex I, Member States may continue to grant authorisations up
until 1st July 2003  in accordance with the basic provisions of Article 4 (concerning safety requirements)
of the Directive.

The Commission will report to the Council and the Parliament in July 2001 on the operation of the
Directive and based on the conclusions of that report, may propose amendments to existing legislation and
procedures.

The Commission is aware of differences in a small number of cases between the residue evaluations
performed in products containing the same substance but used for different purposes. These products that
may have a dual use, such as pesticides and veterinary medicines, have different legal classifications. These
divergences are currently under discussion at both European level and on a wider international basis, under
the Codex alimentarius framework.

(1) (OJ L 317, 6.11.1981), as amended by Council Directive 90/676/EEC (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990) and Council Directive
93/40/EEC (OJ L 214, 24.8.1993).
(2) OJ L 317, 6.11.1981.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, 18.8.1990)  Amended by
Council Regulation (EC) no 434/97 of 3 March 1997 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down
a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in
foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 67, 7.3.1997).
(4) OJ L 230, 10.8.1991.

(2001/C 26 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/00
by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2000)

Subject: World Cup tickets

Further to the reply to my Written Question E-2342/99 (1), would the Commission kindly indicate which
Commission officials received World Cup football tickets, whether gifts of such nature must be declared,
what the conditions are for staff accepting gifts and whether it intends to change working practice in this
area?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 109.
26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/61

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

The Commission does not have a general record of which officials were provided with tickets, whether
paid for or free of charge, for the football World Cup. However, the Honourable Member is referred to the
answer to Written Question E-2342/99 in respect of officials working in the Competition Directorate
General.

The general rules relevant to gifts to officials working in all EU Institutions are in Article 11 of the Staff
Regulations which state that officials ‘shall not without permission of the appointing authority accept from
any source outside the Institution any decoration… favour, gift or payment of any kind whatever….’

The Commission’s internal rules (delivered to the Commission staff on 19 February 1996 with Adminis-
trative Notice No 926) set out criteria for publications, speeches and gifts. They make clear that officials
should discourage the offering of gifts, but provide, inter alia, that ‘staff may be allowed to accept gifts
worth less than Ecu/Euro 250’. They further state that trips or weekends away organised by a third party
can only be allowed if the attendance of the official is in the Commission’s interest.

However, it is clear that not all invitations meetings or events, which may include meals, should be
regarded as gifts or favours within the meaning of Article 11. Meetings, events and other informal contacts
between senior officials and industry, Member States or third countries often include invitations. Such
contacts may well be relevant to the fulfilment of officials’ tasks. Moreover, within reasonable limits, they
may also be considered as part of the representational duties of senior officials.

The Commission therefore does not believe that acceptance of invitations to football matches or similar
events necessarily constitutes a breach of the rules or automatically risks compromising the independence
or integrity of officials. Clearly, if evidence was provided that an attempt had been made on any occasion
to compromise the integrity or independence of an official, or that an official’s obligation of duty had been
breached as a consequence of the provision of tickets or hospitality, the appropriate action would be
taken.

So far as changes in working practices are concerned: In the Action Plan which was adopted as part of the
Reform Strategy White Paper on 1 March 2000, the Commission announced that it would ‘codify and
simplify the texts implementing the Staff Regulations in order to ensure transparency and fairness’ in their
application. The Commission intends to review its guidelines in this context. Since the Staff Regulations
apply to all EU Institutions the Commission believes that there should be common rules to assist officials
and their superiors in dealing with cases such as the one referred to by the Honourable Member. It will
therefore present new draft guidelines to the Heads of Administration with a view to reaching an inter-
institutional agreement.

(2001/C 26 E/075) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/00
by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 February 2000)

Subject: Compliance with the environmental protection laws with regard to the Mugello borrow pit

A project has been drawn up for the excavation of a large borrow pit in Galliano di Mugello (Florence
province), which will also involve the setting up of a crushing plant for the Bologna-Florence mountain
bypass. The site of the pit is not included in any general development schemes or plans.

The Territorial Plan for Provincial Coordination (PTCP) defines the area as a ‘vulnerable area which has
already been damaged by flooding and which is still subject to such risks’.