Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

4.4.

2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 81 E/95

 deplored the actions of those who abuse democratic rights by initiating, planning and carrying out
acts of violence to coincide with public demonstrations;

 recalled the need for a dialogue with non-governmental organisations, social partners and civil society.

Building on the possibilities offered by existing legal instruments and bodies set up within the European
Union, they saw a need to stress the importance of effective European cooperation on law and order.

3. At its meeting on 16 July 2001, the Council announced that it would publish, in conjunction with
the Commission, a detailed rationale of the already very positive role played by the European Union in this
regard.

As regards police action during the Göteborg European Council, the Swedish authorities are currently
conducting an inquiry, including a parliamentary inquiry conducted by the former Prime Minister,
Mr Ingvar Carlsson.

4. The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the full text of the conclusions mentioned in
the first paragraph above is available on the Council’s Internet site.

(2002/C 81 E/111) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/01


by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Council

(12 July 2001)

Subject: US study on solicitation of children on the Internet

Will the Council be taking any action to examine the recent findings of US studies which showed that one
in five children who go online regularly have been approached by strangers for sex at least once in the
past year. The studies indicate that neither the presence of Internet filters nor parental monitoring of
children’s Internet use decreased the likelihood that a child would be sexually solicited by a stranger online.
Because of the global spread of the Internet it is unlikely that these trends are isolated to the United States.
Does the Council therefore intend to complete similar European research to build upon the American
results? Furthermore, does the Council see that such studies raise the need for further European-wide
action in this area that builds upon the STOP and Daphne programmes and the recently adopted initiative
of the Swedish Presidency on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography? If so,
what future action is planned?

The main study to which I refer is Kimberly J. Mitchell, PhD; David Finkelhor, PhD; Janis Wolak, JD, ‘Risk
Factors for and Impact of Online Sexual Solicitation of Youth.’ Journal of the American Medical
Association, Vol 285, No 23, June 20, 2001.

There is also a similar report by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. This is due for full publication
very soon.

Reply

(6 December 2001)

The Council views with concern abuse in the use of the internet, particularly where children are
concerned. The Community is already active in the area of the protection of minors in audiovisual and
information services as indicated by the Council Recommendation of 24 September 1998 on the
protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services (1) which is itself closely
connected with the multiannual Community action plan for promoting safer use of the internet by
combating illegal and harmful content on global networks (2). The latter followed on from the
Commission’s communication on illegal harmful content on the internet.
C 81 E/96 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.4.2002

As far as the recommendation is concerned, which is in fact the first Community legal instrument in this
area, it should also be noted that the Commission has published an evaluation report on its application
(27 February 2001) and that the Council adopted, on 26 June 2001, conclusions (3) on that evaluation in
which it invites the Member States and the Commission to pursue work, in their appropriate spheres of
competence, in the context of the recommendation.

In this connection the Council would point out that as the current STOP II programme, adopted on
28 June 2001, runs until the end of 2002, and the Daphne programme, adopted on 24 January 2000, runs
until the end of 2003, it is too early to comment on possible follow-up to these programmes.

(1) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.


(2) OJ L 33, 6.2.1999.
(3) OJ C 213, 31.7.2001.

(2002/C 81 E/112) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2024/01


by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Animal testing

In the light of the fact that EU legislation  such as Council Regulation 793/93 (1) and Council Directives
86/609 (2), 67/548 (3), 91/414 (4) and 98/8 (5)  now routinely stresses that duplicate testing on vertebrate
animals should be avoided, and to this end either requires or encourages the sharing of information.

Can the Commission answer the following:

 what steps is it taking in the various sectors where animal experiments are performed to ensure that
duplicate testing does not take place?

 what is the extent of duplicate testing in each of those sectors?

 what plans, legislative and/or administrative, does it have to ensure that it ceases?

(1) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.


(2) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.
(3) OJ B 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2001)

The directives to which the Honourable Member refers, do indeed stress that duplicate testing should be
avoided. Directives 67/548/EEC, 91/414/EEC and 98/8/EC (1) furthermore permit Member States to
introduce national measures rendering obligatory the sharing of test data and several Member States have
done so. Under Council Directive 86/609/EEC (2), the Commission monitors the use of animals through
regular collection of statistics on the use of animals in experiments in the Community.