WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Directive 95/29/EC.
C 203 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 18. 7. 2000 1. Is the authorisation under the directive in question to be considered as open-ended? Should the structural requirements relating to the means of transport be checked and, if so, how 2. often? (1) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 52. (2) OJ L 52, 21. 2. 1998, p. 8. (2000/C 203 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1643/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Council (22 September 1999) Subject: Directive 95/29/EC Directive 95/29/EC (1) stipulates that, in the case of animals traded between Member States or exported to third countries and where the journey time exceeds eight hours, the transporter must draw up a route plan. Views seem to differ on whether a route plan is required in respect of transport exceeding eight hours within one country. Are transporters required to draw up route plans for journeys exceeding eight hours inside one country? (1) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 52. Joint answer to Written Questions E-1641/99, E-1642/99 and E-1643/99 (24 January 2000) Directive 95/29/EC (1) amended the rules on the protection of animals during transport laid down in Council Directive 91/628/EEC (2). Article 13(1) of the original Directive required the Commission to submit a report, possibly accompanied by proposals, on maximum journey times, feeding and watering intervals, resting periods, space allowances and the standards to be met by means of transport as regards the transport of certain types of animal. The second recital of Directive 95/29/EC states that áthe report from the Commission, based on an opinion from the Scientific Veterinary Committee, shows that standards can be established on the abovementioned matters in respect of certain types of animal, based on scientific knowledge and well established experienceí. As clearly indicated in the fourth recital, the Council was guided by the objective áof harmonising travelling times and resting periods, feeding and watering intervals, and space allowances, for certain types of animalí, to make it possible in the context of the internal market, áto eliminate technical barriers to trade in live animals and to allow the market organisations in question to operate smoothly, while ensuring a satisfactory level of protection for the animals concernedí. On the basis of these factors, the Council adopted in particular provisions: ü with which the Member States must comply as regards the transport of domestic solipeds (Annex, Chapter VII, point 4(c) of Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC); ü with which all transporters wishing to transport animals must comply, including the requirements for issuing an authorisation (Article 5 of Directive 91/628/EEC as amended by Directive 95/29/EC; additional animal protection standards, applicable to road vehicles used for the carriage of livestock on journeys exceeding eight hours, are laid down in Regulation (EC) No 411/98) (3); ü relating more specifically to the drawing up of a route plan by the transporter to accompany the for transport on (in particular section A. 2(b) of the abovementioned Article 5, consignment 18. 7. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 203 E/15 Community territory, and Article 11(2) of Directive 91/628/EEC, as amended by Directive 95/29/EC, for imports from third countries). Beyond the references to the legislation cited above, the Honourable Member will agree that is not the role of the Council to interpret its own acts or to monitor their application by the Member States, these being powers which the Treaty confers on the Court of Justice and the Commission respectively. (1) OJ L 148, 30. 6. 1995, p. 52. (2) OJ L 340, 11. 12. 1991, p. 17. (3) OJ L 52, 21. 2. 1998, p. 8. (2000/C 203 E/018) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/99 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission (22 September 1999) Subject: Programmes for the street children of Guatemala Could the Commission provide an update on its programme of assistance for the street children of Guatemala in the final two years of its operation? Now that the programme has come to an end, how and through what funding channels will the Commission continue to offer support to the street children of Guatemala? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (19 October 1999) The programme of assistance for the street children of Guatemala ran from January 1996 to July 1999. The purpose of the project was to see that children at risk socially in Guatemala were protected, respected and kept safe. For this purpose, Commission aid centred on three areas of intervention: offering protection and direct assistance to street children to help reintegrate them into society; promoting prevention campaigns to stop youngsters becoming street children, and institution-building among public bodies responsible for protect- ing minors and applying child protection legislation. On the first two points, the project team worked not just with the children but with their families and communities to devise strategies to prevent children ending up on the streets or becoming delinquents. Literacy and vocational training campaigns and income-generating schemes were set up and are still running today. On the third point, there were activities to promote child protection, for example by setting up a joint database for the various bodies that deal with children in trouble with the law, to enable their cases to be dealt with more effectively. Campaigns have been run to encourage Guatemala to implement the International Convention on Protection of Children, which it ratified in 1989, pending the implementation of a new childrenís code which has already been published with Community support. Additionally, there were projects to train staff and to prepare the institutions concerned (the judiciary, the national childrenís agency and the secretariat for social welfare). The project was successful. The government agencies and also the non-governmental organisations involved in it incorporated the running costs into their ordinary budgets, so that the project activities could continue after the Community withdrew. In view of the results, the Community proposes to devise a new project to support street children which will carry on the prevention strategy put into place by the project which has just finished