WRITTEN QUESTION No. 435/99 by Bartho PRONK Ratification by the Netherlands of the Convention concerning safety in the use of asbestos adopted in Geneva on 24 June 1986 (Convention No 162 adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its 72nd sitting)
Date: 1999-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, PRONK
Subjects: International Labour Organisation, Netherlands, asbestos, chemical product, occupational safety, ratification of an agreement













EUR-Lex - 91999E0435 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91999E0435

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 435/99 by Bartho PRONK Ratification by the Netherlands of the Convention concerning safety in the use of asbestos adopted in Geneva on 24 June 1986 (Convention No 162 adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its 72nd sitting)  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0112 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0435/99by Bartho Pronk (PPE) to the Commission(4 March 1999)Subject: Ratification by the Netherlands of the Convention concerning safety in the use of asbestos adopted in Geneva on 24 June 1986 (Convention No 162 adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation at its 72nd sitting)The Commission referred to the Court of Justice the question whether it is the responsibility of the European Union - as part of its Community powers relating to this matter - or of the individual Member States to implement Convention No 162 concerning safety in the use of asbestos adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation. The Court delivered its ruling on 19 March 1993 and concludes that the Union does not have exclusive powers but that responsibility lies jointly with the Member States and the Union.1. Is the Commission aware of the Court of Justice's ruling?2. If so, what is its reaction to that ruling?3. Is the Commission planning to come to a final conclusion in the near future?4. Is the Commission aware that a number of Member States are planning to ratify the conventions or have already ratified them?5. If so, what is the Commission's reaction to that?Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission(9 April 1999)On 21 August 1991, the Commission asked the Court of Justice for its opinion on the compatibility of Convention No 170 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), relating to the safe use of chemical products at work, with the EC Treaty and, more particularly, on the competence of the Community to conclude this Convention and the consequences of this for the Member States.In its opinion 2/91 of 19 March 1993, the Court of Justice considered that "the conclusion of ILO Convention No 170 is a matter which falls within the joint competence of the Member States and the Community". The Court also ruled out the possibility of exclusive external competence being founded on internal rules constituting minimum standards (which is generally the case for the Directives relating to asbestos), at least when the international standard covering the same matter is also a minimum requirement (like, for example, Conventions Nos 162 and 170).The Court also emphasised that "when it appears that the subject-matter of an agreement or contract falls in part within the competence of the Community and in part within that of the Member States, it is important to ensure that there is a close association between the institutions of the Community and the Member States both in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the obligations entered into".Drawing the appropriate lessons from this opinion, on 12 January 1994 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Decision(1) on the exercise of the Community's external competence at international labour conferences in cases falling within the joint competence of the Community and its Member States.Certain Member States have ratified ILO conventions on matters coming under joint competence (five so far in the case of Convention No 162). The Council has not adopted the Commission's proposal, which has not been discussed. The Commission still wishes to find an effective solution within the framework of the Court of Justice's opinion.(1) COM(94) 2 final.