WRITTEN QUESTION P-2193/99 by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Trichloroethylene.
Date: 1999-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: carcinogenic substance, disease of the nervous system, solvent

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/115

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The Honourable Member is certainly aware of the comprehensive character of the Council Conclu-
1.
sions adopted by the Council on 26 October 1999 on the preparation of the WTO Third Ministerial
Conference in Seattle. In its conclusions, the Council emphasised the need to ensure that an appropriate
balance between the further liberalisation of trade and the strengthening of multilateral rules contributes
toward sustainable development, environmental protection, social progress, reduction in poverty and
consumer health.

2.
The Honourable Member will also be aware that environment and core labour standards featured
very high on the EU(cid:146)s agenda for Seattle. As to the former, the Council reasserted during the Ministerial
Conference that environmental considerations should be taken into account throughout the negotiations
with a view to achieving by the end of the round an overall outcome whose environmentally-friendly
consequences could be identified in the relevant parts of the final package. The Council thereby adhered to
its chosen course of action as set out in paragraph 11(g) of the conclusions it adopted at its meeting on
26 October 1999 in preparation for the WTO Third Ministerial Conference. The Council would invite the
Honourable Member to refer to those conclusions.

Regarding core labour standards, the Council strongly supports their protection and throughout the
Ministerial Conference advocated their inclusion in the Ministerial Declaration. To ensure progress on the
issue of trade and workers(cid:146) rights, the EU proposed the establishment of a Joint ILO/WTO Standing
Working Forum on trade, globalisation and labour issues, to promote a better understanding of the issues
involved through a substantive dialogue between all interested parties (including Governments, employers,
trade unions and other relevant international organisations). That dialogue should include an examination
of the relationship between trade policy, trade liberalisation, development and the fundamental rights of
workers. Such a Forum would also prepare for a ministerial-level meeting which should take place no later
than 2001. The EU offered to host such a meeting.

In its conclusions of 26 October 1999 the Council further underlined the need to involve civil
3.
society fully in that process, and to that end to continue the dialogue with it in order to take into account
its legitimate interests and concerns. The Council also stressed the importance of close contacts with the
European Parliament and national parliaments and encouraged dialogue with the organisations of civil
society at both national and European level.

4.
As to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s last question, attention is drawn to the fact that no consensus was
reached at the Ministerial Conference in Seattle on a Ministerial Declaration which would have set the
agenda for a new Round and the arrangements for the negotiations. Consultations on the scope and
framework of a new Round will continue in Geneva in due course and the issues to be covered are
therefore under discussion.
It should be noted that Ministers in Seattle widely acknowledged the
importance of the social dimension of trade and sustainable development as argued by the EU. Throughout
the process which is to follow, the European Union(cid:146)s action will be fully guided by the objectives set out in
the Council Conclusions, without prejudice to the instruments considered appropriate to achieve those
goals.

(2000/C 219 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2193/99

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Trichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene is a highly volatile solvent which damages the nervous system and is considered to be
carcinogenic. The Commission has traditionally taken a lenient attitude towards this solvent. In Sweden,
however,
like certain other chlorinated solvents, has been prohibited in consumer
products since 1993 and in industry since 1996.

trichloroethylene,

C 219 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Has the Commission and its own experts in this field taken in the latest research findings pursuant to
which trichloroethylene should be classified as carcinogenic?

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

(4 January 2000)

Since 1976 trichloroethylene has a Community wide (cid:145)harmonised(cid:146) classification as a dangerous substance
in Annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous sub-
stances (1). Since 1988 trichloroethylene falls into category 3 of the carcinogenic substances (possible
carcinogenic effects on man). Furthermore it is classified as dangerous to the environment since 1996.

Concerning the ban on trichloroethylene in Sweden, it is important to note that there are a number of
exemptions for industry from this ban.

the Commission have been intensively discussing
The regular expert meetings held on behalf of
trichloroethylene since 1996 to review its classification and labelling. In doing so they consider latest
research results. This includes dicussions at national level such as the meeting of experts on 2 December
1999 in Frankfurt am Main, where a number of epidemiological studies causing concern were critically
evaluated.

The frequent discussions on trichloroethylene and the careful evaluation of existing data show that it is
inappropriate to claim that
the Commission has traditionally taken a lenient attitude towards this
substance.

(1) OJ 196, 16.8.1967.

(2000/C 219 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2195/99

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Transport between airport terminals

The issue of transport between airport terminals which arose recently in connection with the planned
transfer of flights from Linate to Malpensa also arises for passengers who fly into Athens on an airline
other than Olympic Airways and are obliged to continue their journey on that carrier, which serves most
domestic destinations.

Arrangements for transport between terminals at Athens airport are left entirely up to the passengers
themselves who are obliged to bear the cost of a journey that takes them outside the airport boundaries
(unlike at Malpensa, where the transfer is made inside the airport itself by means of a complimentary
shuttle service). This situation may prompt passengers flying into Greece to opt for Olympic Airways
rather than another carrier, so as save time and trouble, and therefore places Olympic Airways in a
privileged position.

Is this situation in keeping with EU law?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 1999)

According to the information we have at the Commission there is a paying shuttle service at Athens-
Hellenikon airport between the East terminal, where all carriers not belonging to the Olympic Airways
group fly from, and the West terminal, used by Olympic Airways.