WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Ban on antifouling paints containing copper.
Date: 1999-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Netherlands, copper, infringement of EU law, painting, pleasure craft, quantitative restriction

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/21

This Commission intention has been confirmed in the Commission communication on (cid:145)the common
transport policy (cid:129) sustainable mobility: perspectives for the future(cid:146), which mentions a proposal on
accident
the main possible tasks for its action programme
2000-2004 (4).

investigation and statistics as one of

IMO Assembly Resolution A.849(20) adopted on 27 November 1997.

(1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.
(2)
(3) OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.
(4) COM(98) 716 final.

(2000/C 225 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1793/99

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Ban on antifouling paints containing copper

(11 October 1999)

On 31 August 1999, the Netherlands Minister for Health, Welfare and Sport (for the Pesticides Authorisa-
tion Board) issued a decree prohibiting, with effect from 1 September 1999, the use on (i.e. application to)
pleasure craft in the Netherlands of antifouling paints that contain copper. However, vessels to which
antifouling paints containing copper are applied in other countries are not banned in Dutch waters. Nor
does the ban apply to antifouling treatments used in the Netherlands before 1 September 1999.

Does the Commission agree that the Dutch provisions may be regarded as a barrier to trade such as is
prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?

Does the Netherlands government have the power to issue such a decree before the end of
implementation period of, in this case, Directive 98/8/EC (1) (the Biocides Directive)?

the

What are the Netherlands government(cid:146)s obligations pursuant to Directive 98/8/EC and/or the general
directive on the notification of technical measures (Directive 98/34/EC) (2) as regards the notification of this
ban before it is implemented?

Has the Netherlands fulfilled any such obligations?

If so, how and to what extent?

If not, what action does the Commission plan to take?

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 1999)

The Commission is unable to state its opinion on the national provisions until they have been notified to
it.

If the national provisions concerned are (cid:145)technical rules(cid:146) within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of the
Parliament and of
the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down the procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the Netherlands has not fulfilled its
obligations since, as far as the Commission is aware, the provisions concerned have not been notified to it.

If the provisions are indeed (cid:145)technical rules(cid:146) which have not been notified in accordance with the procedure
laid down in the above Directive, the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty, will take all necessary
steps. However, a more detailed examination of the measure is necessary to enable the Commission to
adopt a position on it.

C 225 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Article 16 of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the
placing on the market of biocide products provides for a transitional period of ten years. During the
transitional period, the notification requirement under Directive 98/34/EC still remains (see Article 16(5)).

Until the final date for the transposition of the Biocides Directive, on 13 May 2000, the Dutch authorities
do have the right to adopt such national provisions, provided that, apart from being notified as mentioned
above, the provisions are compatible with Articles 28 (formerly Article 30) to 30 (formerly Article 36) of
the EC Treaty. The Commission will check such compatibility on the basis of the texts submitted to it.

(2000/C 225 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/99

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Notified bodies

The Commission(cid:146)s intention to promote free trade between the EU and the countries applying for
membership and to reduce industry(cid:146)s costs by means of the speedy recognition of notified bodies is
supported by the author of this question. There must, however, be no permanent lowering of environ-
mental, social, product and technical standards which may affect consumers either in the EU or in the
applicant countries. For this reason it must be ensured that notified bodies in the applicant countries
receive professional and financial assistance to enable them to monitor the release of products on to the
market, so that the EU(cid:146)s quality standards can be matched. In general terms, however, precautions should
also be taken to ensure that the quality standards of technical monitoring in the EU and in the applicant
countries are such that consumers are guaranteed a high level of protection and safety. There is no room
for any (cid:145)black sheep(cid:146) amongst the ranks of such important institutions as the notified bodies.

1. Why was the question of notified bodies not negotiated as part of the whole accession (cid:145)package(cid:146)?

2. What action is the Commission planning to take in order to bring the notified bodies in the
applicant countries up to the EU(cid:146)s quality standards, and will that action be sufficient?

3. What have the Commission(cid:146)s experiences with the protection clause procedures been so far and what
form will such procedures take during the transition period?

4. What form does the question of jurisdiction take?

How does the Commission intend to carry out regular monitoring of the necessary quality standards

5.
both in the EU and in the applicant countries?

6.
Is the Commission planning to take any further steps in order to promote liberalisation in the field of
testing and standards and thereby to reduce costs borne by producers and hence, indirectly, by consumers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

The Commission is in broad agreement with the position expressed by the Honourable Member.

However, it would add the following comments in reply to the specific questions:

1. Questions relating to notified bodies are covered by the enlargement negotiations, under the chapter

(cid:145)free movement of goods(cid:146). These negotiations are still in process.