Coerced by the Treaty of Badajoz Into Ceding Olivença to Spain. the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in 1807, in Violation of the Treaty, Led to Its Annulment

21.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 280 E/127 coerced by the Treaty of Badajoz into ceding Olivença to Spain. The Spanish invasion of Portugal in 1807, in violation of the Treaty, led to its annulment. The Treaty of Paris of 30 May 1814 declared the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz null and void. The Final Act of the Vienna Congress (9 June 1815), Article 105, recognised the rights of Portugal. On 7 May 1817, Spain signed the Treaty of Vienna, ‘recognising the just claims made His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent of Portugal and Brazil, to the town of Olivença and the other territories ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Badajoz of 1801’, and thereby undertook to make ‘its best efforts to ensure that these territories were handed over (in the shortest time possible) to Portugal’. To this day, the frontier between Portugal and Spain from the mouth of the river Caia to the mouth of the river Cuncos is still undefined, thanks to the Olivença issue. To come to details, in 1709, following the War of the Spanish Succession, the Bridge of Olivença or of Our Lady of Help the Ajuda bridge, was destroyed by Spanish forces. On 11 March 2003, with a view to rebuilding the bridge, on the initiative of Spain, work began on earth-moving operations on the left bank of the Guadiana, which is Portuguese territory administered de facto by Spain. This led to the Portuguese Foreign Minister’s office requesting an explanation from the Spanish Minister. More recently, the Spanish project reached the right bank of the Guadiana (Elvas local authority), located on Portuguese territory de jure and de facto. Can the Council answer the following: Does it have a position on the Olivença issue? If not, how does it assess the issue from a legal point of view? What parallels does it draw with the Gibraltar issue, repeatedly raised by Spain? Does it intend to take steps to help resolve the problem? How does the Council view a Member State which fails to meet international legal obligations repeatedly given to another Member State? With regard to the Ajuda Bridge, could the Council consider intervening with a view to putting a stop to this Spanish initiative? Reply (22 July 2003) The Honourable Member should note that the Council has never broached this subject, as it does not come within the Council’s purview. (2003/C 280 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1299/03 by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission (1 April 2003) Subject: Watered down chicken Is the Commission aware of media reports concerning poultry processors from Holland and Brazil pumping chickens with water, artificial chemicals, and even material from pig and cow skin? The objective is apparently to increase the weight of the product and mislead consumers. Is this legal, and if so what tests have been done to ensure consumer safety? Are there labelling requirements? If this is illegal, what is the Commission doing to address this problem? C 280 E/128 Official Journal of the European Union EN 21.11.2003 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (10 June 2003) The Commission learned on 12 March 2003 the results of the checks performed by the Irish and British authorities which were published on the Internet the same day (1). These checks concerned mainly products based on chicken fillets processed in the Netherlands and intended for the catering trade and followed on from the investigations carried out by the same authorities in 2001 and 2002. These chicken fillets had been subject to the addition of water and other ingredients such as salts, polyphosphates, animal and vegetable proteins, flavourings and flavour enhancers. The animal proteins used are generally extracted from milk (casein and caseinates), or are protein hydrolysates obtained from the processing of animal by-products. The presence of salts, polyphosphates and proteins has the deliberate effect of retaining a significant proportion of water in the end product. As the Commission stated in its answers to Written Questions E-2418/02 from Mrs Jackson (2) and E- 2331/02 from Mrs Corbey (3), this type of procedure is not illegal, as long as the ingredients used meet the applicable regulations in terms of authorisation and labelling. According to the information communicated to the Commission, the bovine proteins used in the Netherlands for the production of the chicken fillets concerned are from establishments in Spain and Germany. Additional investigations carried out in 2002 by the German and Spanish authorities at establishments that produce these hydrolised proteins did not find that the law was being broken. However, investigations in Ireland and the United Kingdom have shown that infringements of the European law on labelling (4) persist. The infringements recorded in respect of the products from the Netherlands included labelling likely to mislead consumers about the real nature of the product, an incomplete list of ingredients, an incorrect percentage of meat, and the use of the word Halal in a product containing pork. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 8 April 2003, the Commission reminded the Member States in which such products are produced and marketed of their obligation to enforce the existing legislation and to encourage the national authorities to cooperate further in order to ensure greater effectiveness in their inspections and to intensify inspections whenever repeated infringements of the legislation are found. (1) http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/chickenwater0303. http://www.fsai.ie/press_releases/120303.htm. (2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 234. (3) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 152. (4) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs OJ L 109, 6.5.2000. (2003/C 280 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission (7 April 2003) Subject: Administrative investigations against Mrs Cresson In the answer to my Written Question E-0296/03 (1) Vice-President Kinnock, on behalf of the Commission, refused to give information concerning the investigations which the Commission has opened against Mrs Cresson following Parliament’s resolution of 29 November 2001 (2)..

Load more