You are on page 1of 2

C 110 E/166 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.


framework Directive and is designed to harmonise Member States legislation in order to ensure the free
movement of personal data within the Internal Market. Member States must adopt laws transposing the
Directive and apply its principles in their national context.

The Commission is not familiar with the details of the Belgian fan card system.

In order to determine compatibility in a specific case, it would be necessary to look in particular:

 at the relevance of the data processed in relation to the purpose of the collection and further
processing: the amount of data collected should correspond to what is necessary and should not be

 at the arrangements made to inform data subjects of the purpose of the processing, of the identity of
the data controller and of the parties with whom the data is shared;

 and at the limits placed on the use of the data: any uses must be compatible with the purpose for
which the data were collected.

Member States may make exceptions to some requirements of Directive 95/46/EC where this is necessary
for law enforcement or public safety reasons, but such exceptions must be made by legislation.

The Commission underlines that, according to Article 28 of Directive 95/46/EC, each Member State must
provide that one or more public authorities are responsible for monitoring the application within its
territory of the provisions adopted by the Member States pursuant to this Directive. The compatibility of
specific processing operations with national law is in the first instance a matter for these authorities to

As to the question from the Honourable Member if an obligation for supporters to prove their identity
when attending matches outside their own Member State will contribute to enhancing security the
Commission would like to reply as follows.

Such a measure would indeed seem interesting. In itself it will not be sufficient to assure an adequate level
of security at international football matches, however. That objective can only be achieved when the
relevant services of the Member States implement the measures which are described in the Handbook with
recommendations for international police co-operation and measures to prevent violence and disturbances
in connection with international football matches and which was approved by the Council by way of a
Resolution on 6 December 2001.

(2003/C 110 E/185) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3116/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Update on the evaluation of fenthion

Commissioner Byrne stated in his answer to Written Question E-0749/02 (1) that the Commission would
submit the result of its evaluation to the Scientific Committee on plants in April 2002 and that the
Committee was expected to deliver its opinion within two months. The Commissioner added that it was
the intention of the Commission to decide on fenthion as soon as possible after receipt of the opinion of
the Scientific Committee.

Did the Scientific Committee conclude that fenthion is safe or unsafe, and what decision has been taken by
the Commission?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 225.

8.5.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/167

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it asked the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Plants on several
questions arising from the evaluation of fenthion. Given the complexity of the issues surrounding the
substance, the Committee has taken longer than expected to finalise its opinion. However, it is expected
that the Committee will deliver its opinion in the coming months and the Commission intends to decide
on fenthion as soon as possible thereafter.

(2003/C 110 E/186) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3117/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 October 2002)

Subject: Galician mussels  protected designation of origin

Between 260 and 300 million kg of mussels put on the market each year, a turnover of more than
EUR 400 million, 2 400 families directly involved in the farming and a total of 13 000 jobs, of which
around 8 500 are permanent, with another 7000 indirectly related jobs  all this marks out Galician
mussel farming as a strong sector and makes the region the world’s leading producer of mussels for human
consumption. This is particularly important, bearing in mind that the resources generated by mussel
production are spread across a broad social base and that decisions are taken locally, with the result that
funds are reinvested in the region. This has a multiplier effect on the local economy, helping to produce
socio-economic stability. The sector accounts for approximately 50 % of total EU production, with 35 %
being sold fresh, 41 % earmarked for traditional processing and 24 % for new alternative processing
methods, which are increasingly popular.

The mussel farming management board in Galicia has already applied for a protected designation of origin
(PDO) for this product, which would serve as a world-wide standard since it would be the first ever
awarded to a seafood product. In the reply of 19 February 2001 to my parliamentary question E-0013/
01 (1), Commissioner Fischler confirmed that ‘the Commission has indeed received an application from the
Spanish authorities regarding registration of the name in question as a protected designation of origin’ and
gave an assurance that the application was being considered.

Can the Commission provide a progress report on the approval and registration process for the PDO?

Can the Commission explain the reasons for the delay and any possible obstacles to approval?

Can the Commission state what measures it has taken or intends to take to speed up the approval of this
PDO for Galician mussels and when it thinks the approval and registration process will be completed?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 87.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

The application for the name ‘Mejillones de Galicia’ to be registered as a protected designation of origin
(PDO) was submitted on 19 February 2001. The file is currently being examined by the
Scientific Committee for PDOs, protected geographical indications (PGIs) and traditional specialities
guaranteed (TSGs).