You are on page 1of 2

C 81 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities



As the Honourable Member of Parliament may be aware, Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) provides that sensitive documents as defined in Article 9(1) of the Regulation shall be subject to special treatment in accordance with that Article. As already pointed out in its reply his Written Question E-2846/00 of 11 September 2000, the Council will review its Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to documents, as last amended by Decision 2000/527/EC, in the light of the new rules provided for in the said Regulation.
(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(2002/C 81 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1477/01 by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Council (21 May 2001)

Subject: Racism in the Netherlands 1. Is the Council aware that ‘De Buddy’s’ a Dutch church choir which is as well known in the Netherlands as the Vienna’s Boys’ Choir in German-speaking countries, have recently produced a CD entitled ‘Do not buy from Austrians’? 2. Is the Council aware of the historic significance of this title in the light of the last hundred years of German history? 3. Does the Council know whether the Dutch Government is taking any action against this and other xenophobic manifestations?

Reply (26 November 2001) The Council is very active in combating racism, as borne out by the establishment of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and by the recent adoption, under the new Article 13 of the Treaty, of a Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. The Council is not aware of the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member and would in any event be unable to comment on such matters, which come within the purview of the Member States.

(2002/C 81 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1487/01 by Jean-Claude Martinez (TDI) to the Council (21 May 2001)

Subject: Fraud involving animal meal In order to combat BSE or mad cow disease, France imposed a ban on animal meal intended for cattle in July 1990 and, in July 1996, stepped up this measure by excluding ‘specified risk material’ (SRM) such as the brain, the spleen or the spinal cord. However, a case has recently come to light revealing the manufacture and fraudulent trade of several thousand tonnes of animal meal intended for cattle which appears to have continued after 1996. Given the gravity of the situation and the public health risk involved, what steps will the Council take? In particular, does it intend to strengthen cooperation between animal health and anti-fraud inspectorates?



Official Journal of the European Communities Reply (21 November 2001)

C 81 E/31

Regarding the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Council would point out that the Member States are responsible for enforcing Community and national rules on the use of animal meal and for punishing breaches of those rules in accordance with national law. That said, the Council had problems of control very much in mind when it decided temporarily to ban the use of animal meal in animal feed. Regarding cooperation between animal health inspectorates, the Council would point out that such cooperation is governed by Directive 89/608/EEC of 29 November 1989 (1). […] A proposal to strengthen Community legislation on official inspections of animal feed (Directive 95/53/EC) was submitted by the Commission and its adoption is imminent. Nevertheless, cooperation between different inspectorates within an individual Member State is the sole responsibility of that State.
(1) OJ L 351, 2.12.1989.

(2002/C 81 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1496/01 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Council (21 May 2001)

Subject: Troika visit to Algeria During the visit to Algeria by the President of the Council of the EU, Mrs Anna Lindh, and the High Representative Mr Javier Solana, one of the subjects discussed in talks with the Algerian authorities was the situation in Western Sahara. It is no secret that implementation of the peace process in Western Sahara, consisting in the holding of a referendum, is encountering considerable difficulties, which have led to a virtual standstill. Aware of this situation, the UN Secretary-General Mr Kofi Annan stated, in his report to the Security Council in February 2001, that he had asked the Moroccan authorities for a set of proposals on opening political negotiations between the two sides in order to break the deadlock. This will mean the opening of a new phase and a new opportunity, in which the EU should not shirk its responsibilities or fail to exert its influence. In this situation, is the Council aware of its capacity to influence the two sides and help to overcome an impasse which, in addition to causing great suffering to the population concerned, is threatening a resumption of violence and increasing tension in the Maghreb? Does the Council consider that the EU should develop an active role to assist a peaceful settlement of the Western Sahara question? In the light of the latest meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Arab Maghreb Union held recently in Algiers, and the subsequent statements by those responsible for the EU’s Euro-Mediterranean policy aimed at boosting the processes of sub-regionalisation and South-South cooperation, does the Council consider that the necessary development of an open market in the Maghreb is feasible without the prior agreement of the two sides regarding the dispute over Western Sahara?

Reply (26 November 2001) The Western Sahara conflict is clearly bad for political and economic integration in the Arab Maghreb Union. Nonetheless, the United Nations Secretary General considered in his latest report that ‘substantial