You are on page 1of 1

C 192 E/218 Official Journal of the European Union EN 14.8.


Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission was not previously aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

If the animals concerned had in fact become feral after roaming free in a mountainous area for five years,
their killing would not, in the opinion of the Commission, have to comply with the requirements of
Council Directive 93/119/EC of 22 December 1993 on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter
or killing (1).

Even in cases where the Directive applies, shooting resulting in instantaneous death is a permitted method
of killing the species of animals falling within the scope of the Directive.

If the animals had become feral it may have been impossible to round them up for slaughter in another
manner, or for those shooting them to get close enough to ensure instantaneous death on every occasion.

The Commission does not, therefore, believe that this is a matter that requires its intervention with the
Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993.

(2003/C 192 E/260) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0754/03

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Chrysotile asbestos

Further to its answer of 15 March 2002 in response to Written Question E-0200/02 (1) on asbestos, could
the Commission please identify the ‘numerous scientific bodies’ referred to in that answer, specifically
those that have done and published research into the carcinogenicity of chrysotile asbestos, and
distinguishing between those research publications which treat chrysotile asbestos as a separate material
to blue and brown asbestos and those that treat all asbestos as having similar carcinogenic qualities?

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 197.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Further to its answer to written question E-0200/02 by Mr Tannock, Mr Arvidsson and Mr Trakatellis, the
Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to the opinions delivered by the Scientific
Committee on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) of 15 September 1998 (1) and
17 December 2002 (2). These opinions contain references to 82 scientific publications, of which 31 such
publications deal specifically with chrysotile.

On the basis of this scientific evidence, the SCTEE has confirmed that chrysotile is a proven human

(1) Opinion on ‘Chrysotile asbestos and candidate substitutes’ delivered on 15 September 1998 at the 5th plenary
meeting, Brussels. Available on the website:
(2) Opinion on the ‘risk to human health from chrysotile asbestos and organic substitutes’ delivered on 17 December
2002 at the 35th plenary meeting, Brussels. This opinion is available on the Website: