WRITTEN QUESTION No. 750/98 by Allan MACARTNEY to the Commission. Transport blockades and free movement of goods
Date: 1998-03-18
Institutions: European Parliament, MACARTNEY
Subjects: France, United Kingdom, fisherman, free movement of goods, indemnification, strike, trade restriction, transport company

18.1.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/5

(1999/C 13/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0750/98

by Allan Macartney (ARE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: Transport blockades and free movement of goods

The blockades in France, by both lorry drivers and fishermen, resulted in the loss of both business and profits for
many Scottish companies. Although limited compensation has been awarded, companies that were not in France
at the time, but were unable to enter France as a direct result of the blockades, were and are not entitled to
compensation.

Can the Commission confirm that, with regard to the blockades affecting free movement between the United
Kingdom and France, it was and is unable to do anything to permit the free movement of goods from one Member
State to another? Should not France, as a Member State with obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty to prohibit
measures having equivalent effect, be held to account for the losses directly incurred by companies on both sides
of the Channel as a result of the blockades?

Does the Commission envisage action against France for failing to take the necessary and proportionate measures
to ensure the free movement of goods, or does it believe that the recent ruling by the Court of Justice (Case
C-265/95) regarding the obstruction of Spanish tomato imports is adequate to ensure that the French Government
will take appropriate and expedient action in the future? Given the lack of compensation to those that were
adversely affected and the lack of action on the part of the French Government to ensure free movement, is it not
the case that further action against France is in fact necessary so as to ensure, firstly, that the climate of insecurity
created by the blockades is not allowed to continue and, secondly, to allow compensation to be awarded for all
those companies that incurred losses as a direct result of the lack of free movement?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 1998)

As the Honourable Member points out, the Court of Justice has ruled (1) that France infringed Article 30 in
conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty by failing to take appropriate measures to ensure the free movement
of fruit and vegetables within its territory. This is the first time that the Court has ruled that a Member State(cid:146)s
failure to take measures against the actions of private individuals constitutes a state measure incompatible with
Article 30.

It is now up to the national courts to take account of the legal arguments set out in this judgment when assessing
the rights of private individuals appealing to the courts. It is clear that such individuals can obtain redress for
losses suffered as a result of hindrances incompatible with Article 30 of the EC Treaty, such as those cited by the
Honourable Member.

The Commission has put forward a proposal for a Council regulation (2) based on Article 235 of the EC Treaty
which would set up an intervention mechanism allowing the Commission to call on a Member State to take
whatever measures are necessary and appropriate to eliminate certain types of obstacles to trade. This proposal is
currently being considered by Parliament and the Council.

(1) Case C-265/95 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-6959.
(2) COM(97) 619 final.

(1999/C 13/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/98

by Carmen D(cid:237)ez de Rivera Icaza (PSE) to the Commission

(18 March 1998)

Subject: PVC toys

The EU(cid:146)s Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment has confirmed that toys made of
soft PVC contain and release large amounts of toxic substances (phthalates).

Does the Commission intend to adopt measures on the lines indicated by the Committee in respect of PVC toys?