You are on page 1of 2

C 26 E/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.

2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2000)

1. To solve the structural problems of Italian citrus-fruit growing, Community legislation envisages two
types of measure: operational programmes run by producer organisations as provided for in Council
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and
vegetables (1), and schemes forming part of rural development as set out in Council Regulation (EC)
No 1251/99 of 17 May 1999 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (2).

2. The Commission feels that the introduction of aid per hectare is not the right way to go in the
Community citrus-fruit sector. Aid of this kind does not encourage the conversion to new varieties which
is necessary to keep up with trends in demand.

Furthermore, area aid is only worth considering if it applies to all land under cultivation, including areas
growing fruit for the fresh-fruit market.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 26 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0905/00
by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 March 2000)

Subject: Alteration of the cultural heritage in FYROM

Extensive alterations have reportedly been made recently to the architecture of the Church of Ayios
Dimitrios in the town of Bitola (Monastir) in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which
clearly constitute alteration of the cultural heritage of that historical monument and of the region in
general. Will the Council say whether it is aware of this situation, what steps it intends to take to put an
immediate end to these actions, and whether it has taken or intends to take any measures to protect the
historical monuments and the cultural heritage in general in the Balkans?

Reply

(26 June 2000)

The Council would point out that on 24 January 2000 it issued negotiating directives to the Commission
for the negotiation of a stabilisation and association Agreement with the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. These directives foresee that the future Agreement would contain provisions on cultural
cooperation and in particular the conservation and restoration of monuments and cites.

(2001/C 26 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0909/00
by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidies under the CAP for cruelty to animals

The Commission’s answer to Question E-0039/00 (1) states that bovine animals are castrated at a very early
age (in order to minimise their suffering). However, according to specialised literature (Compassion in
World Farming Trust, ‘For their own good  a study of farm animal mutilations’, October 1994, p.18)
quoting Robertson et al, 1994, any method of castration causes severe pain, irrespective of the animal’s
age (the test covered animals 6, 21 and 42 days old).
26.1.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/129

Furthermore, the answer mentions practices which are common in 3 out of the 15 Member States of the
European Union. Whilst the description of the situation in these 3 countries may be true, this does not
mean that in many other cases the situation is not different.

In particular the situation described does not apply to the Autonomous Region of the Azores. In view of
the fact that European Union regulations apply throughout EU territory and that no exemption is
envisaged for any geographical area, does the Commission not consider that it is incomprehensible that
the CAP should encourage the castration of bovine animals, thereby promoting the suffering of animals for
no valid reason?

When does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Regulation No 1254/1999 (2), so as to stop
encouraging cruelty to bovine animals?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member also to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0876/00 (1)
on the same topic.

While common agricultural policy schemes take account of traditional farming practices, the Commission
gives due consideration to questions of animal welfare. Available information gives no grounds, however,
for proposing the regulatory change desired by the Honourable Member.

(1) See page 125.

(2001/C 26 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0910/00
by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Aachen-Heerlen cross-border industrial estate

The Avantis cross-border industrial estate between the cities of Aachen and Heerlen on the German-Dutch
border has been recognised and supported by the EU as a European model project. Work on its
construction began in September 1998, and € 30 million has been spent on it. In the meanwhile, various
legal proceedings against the industrial estate are pending, both in the Netherlands and in the Federal
Republic of Germany. Moreover, a petition on this subject has been lodged with the European Parliament
(no 685/96).

The party which has brought the legal proceedings, as well as taking the initiative politically and lodging
the petition, against the Avantis cross-border industrial estate is the Nature Conservation Association of
Germany  NABU, Stadtverband Aachen.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Is it true that, in accordance with German law on nature conservation, NABU was involved in the
planning procedure as a recognised nature conservation association and should therefore be regarded
as a party to the procedure?

2. Is it true that the official responsible for administration of the Avantis project at DG XI D 02, Oliver
Schall, is also a member of NABU, and does not the Commission regard this as:
(a) in case of bias,
(b) incompatible with the guidelines on transparency adopted by the Commission?