WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Hallmarking.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/193 As the Honourable Member observes, Article 88(3) has the effect of suspending assistance until the above procedure has resulted in a final decision. The Commission will make known its position as soon as possible in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure. (1) OJ C 74, 10. 3. 1998. (2000/C 330 E/222) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0620/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission Subject: Teaching of Greek-language interpreting (3 March 2000) The Germersheim campus of the University of Mainz (Germany) has a teaching programme which includes a very useful training course for interpreters from and into various European languages. Despite the fact that there are several dozen students studying interpreting from and into Greek, I am informed that the university plans to discontinue the teaching of interpreting from and into this language. At the same time, I am told that the university receives funding from the European Union precisely to support the teaching of interpreting. In the light of this information, could the Commission say what plans the University of Mainz has with regard to the teaching of interpreting from and into Greek? Since there does not seem to be any good reason for its abolition, could the Commission request the University of Mainz or its supervisory authority to maintain the teaching of this language, which is particularly useful for the operation of Community bodies and many other European organisations and undertakings? Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission (14 April 2000) The Commission agrees with the Honorable Memberís comments on the importance of Greek as an official Community language. In the field of interpreting, the Joint Interpreting and Conference Service is making the utmost effort to guarantee multilingualism and the equal dignity of all the languages. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot take the place of national authorities when it comes to the training of interpreters. In fact, in keeping with the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of the education it provides and for the way in which its education system is organised. The decision to discontinue the teaching of interpreting in Greek is therefore the responsibility of the university authorities and ultimately of the Member State concerned. Finally, it would appear in the present case that the information received by the Honorable Member does not entirely reflect the situation as it stands. The University of Mainz has in fact confirmed that Greek is not and never has been one of the languages in the syllabus for the training of interpreters. Moreover, the Commission does not contribute financially to the interpreter training programme at this university. (2000/C 330 E/223) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0621/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Hallmarking Further to Answer H-0729/99 (1) to my previous question about the hallmarking of silver, will the Commission use its best endeavours to facilitate an in-depth discussion to take place in the Councilís C 330 E/194 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 working group concerning the Councilís proposal for the Eí and áeí distinction between manufacturer- marked and third party marked silver articles, and so enable agreement to be reached to a directive which will finally inaugurate a single market in silver articles? (1) Debates of the European Parliament (December 1999). Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (12 April 2000) The Commission agrees with the suggestion by the Honourable Member to distinguish between Eí and áeí marking. It will endeavour to facilitate the in-depth discussion in the next Council working group and so to enable agreement about the hallmarking Directive to be reached. (2000/C 330 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Sergio Berlato (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Eradication of infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) (3 March 2000) Following a vaccination-related accident in the Netherlands in the spring of 1999, the Commission rightly decided to put a temporary ban on the vaccines Bayovac IBR marker vivumí and áattenuated Rhinobovin markerí until the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) could carry out the necessary scientific tests and make a final decision. However, in the absence of proof of adverse effects, it did not ban the vaccines Bayovac IBR marker inactivatumí and ákilled Rhinobovin markerí, which are officially authorised in all EU Member States, except for Italy. 1. Does the Commission not consider it would be advisable to speed up procedures in order to bring the validation process for the live vaccines to an end, thereby providing assurance in the fight to eradicate infectious bovine rhinotracheitis? Does the Commission consider it necessary to ask Italy to lift its ban on marketing authorisation for 2. Bayerís áinactivatumí vaccine and Hoechstís ákilledí vaccine? 3. Does it consider this isolation, decreed by the Italian Ministry of Health, to be justified when the said Ministry is granting exemptions from the ban and is allowing the áinactivatumí vaccine, purchased in France, to be given to Italian cattle due to take part in a European event (Friesian cattle show) in Brussels on 11, 12 and 13 February? 4. Whilst respecting the fundamental need for scientific testing, does the Commission not think that any procrastination might help to exacerbate the economic losses of Italian breeders brought about by the delay in efforts to eradicate IBR? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (14 April 2000) 1. , 2. and 4. As a result of cases of bovine viral diarrhoea (BVD) occurring in cattle vaccinated with the nationally authorised veterinary medicinal product Bayovac (infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR)) marker vivum in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom presented to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) a Community referral under Article 23a of Council Directive 81/851/EEC (1). At that time the marketing authorisation holders informed the EMEA that Bayovac IBR marker vivum and Rhinobovin marker had been voluntarily withdrawn in all Community markets pending the outcome of the Community referral. At no time was a temporary ban imposed by the Commission. However, the national marketing authorisations were suspended by the Irish, Italian, Dutch and British authorities