WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/99 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Restriction on freedom of movement because of returned goods rules concerning firearms.
Date: 2000-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, directive (EU), free movement of persons, hunting, internal border of the EU, personal weapon

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/185

(2000/C 225 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2608/99

by Gilles Savary (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 1999)

Subject: Directive 79/409/EEC (cid:129) Dates of the hunting season

The procedure for amending Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds initiated during
the previous parliamentary term in order, inter alia, to lay down the detailed rules for the implementation
and transposition into national law of Article 7 of that directive, has not been concluded. What, therefore,
are the Commission(cid:146)s views on the fixing of the dates of the hunting season in the various Member States?

Precisely how does it interpret the general provisions laid down in Article 7 in its present wording?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(11 January 2000)

As the procedure for amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds is not yet complete, the Member States must fix the dates of the hunting season for birds in
accordance with the current provisions of paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Directive.

Interpretation of Community law falls not to the Commission, but to the Court of Justice, which has
already interpreted Article 7(4) in its judgments of 17 January 1991 (Case C-157/89, Commission v Italy (1))
and 19 January 1994 (Case C-435/92, Association pour la Protection des Animaux Sauvages and
others v PrØfet de Maine-et-Loire and PrØfet de Loire-Atlantique, Reference for a preliminary ruling:
Tribunal administratif de Nantes (cid:129) France (2)).

(1)
(2)

European Court Reports 1991, p. I-0057.
European Court Reports 1994, p. I-0067.

(2000/C 225 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2610/99

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Restriction on freedom of movement because of returned goods rules concerning firearms

Is the Commission aware that in the Federal Republic of Germany with effect from 22 June 1999 persons
bearing arms already entered in the European Firearms Pass require an additional information sheet (cid:145)INF 3(cid:146)
(on returned goods)?

Does the Commission agree that this is a restriction on freedom of movement?

The introduction of the European Firearms Pass was intended to provide definitive rules for the bearing of
arms on the territory of the Member States, The purpose of the new form is not obvious. The value added
tax is included in the purchase price. If a weapon is sold there is, in any case, an obligation to have it
removed from the arms possession card or the European Firearms Pass within a period of four weeks.
Presenting the European Firearms Pass should be sufficient for persons crossing borders.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2000)

Article 12 of Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession
of weapons (1) states that possession of a firearm during a journey through two or more Member States is

C 225 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

subject to prior authorisation. By way of derogation, hunters, for firearms classified in categories C and
D of Annex I of the Directive, and marksmen, for categories B, C and D, may without prior authorisation
be in possession of one or more firearms classified in these categories during a journey through two or
more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a
European firearms pass listing such firearm or firearms and provided that they are able to substantiate the
reasons for their journey, in particular by producing an invitation. However, this derogation does not
apply to journeys to a Member State which prohibits the acquisition and possession of the firearm in
question or which, pursuant to Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, makes it subject to authorisation.

The Commission has not been informed by the German authorities of the introduction of the document to
which the honourable Member refers. On 16 December 1999, the Commission contacted the German
authorities and asked them to explain the nature of the document and the reasons and grounds for
introducing it in Germany. When the Commission receives a reply from the German authorities, it will
ensure that the honourable Member is informed of the action it intends to take on the matter.

the Commission wishes to stress that

However,
the European firearms pass is the only document
recognised by all the Member States as authorisation for the temporary movement of firearms in journeys
between two or more Member States of EU nationals, in particular hunters and marksmen. Furthermore,
given the Commission(cid:146)s obligation under Article 12(2) of Directive 91/477/EEC, the question of the
functioning of the European firearms pass will be duly taken into account in the report on the application
of this Directive which the Commission will address to the Parliament and the Council in the course of
2000.

(1) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

(2000/C 225 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2614/99

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Irregularities and problems in the allocation and use of financing from Community funds for

Katerini General Hospital

On 26 November 1996 the Greek Government(cid:146)s Public Corporation for the Construction of Medical Units
(PCCMU) awarded the contract for building the Prefectural General Hospital of Katerini to a particular joint
venture, in spite of its inexplicably low tender and various other irregularities in the way the contract
awarding process had been carried out. Specifically, the PCCMU decided to award the contract without the
approval of the Competition Committee, which had asked why the tender was so low but had never
received an answer, and had therefore not given its approval. Long delays in carrying out the work were
one of the consequences of the above, resulting in a penal clause amounting to 90 million drachmas being
applied to the contracting joint venture. Most bizarrely, however, the contractor did not forfeit the job, as
is usual in such circumstances, but was granted an extension of eight months by the PCCMU in which to
complete it. Today, however, 33 months after the contract was awarded and just five months away from
the deadline for completion, not even the frame is ready and barely 20 % of the total is estimated to have
been finished. The Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General XV, in a warning letter sent on 5 May 1998 to the
responsible Greek authorities, expressed reservations about the contract awarding process and fears that
the project might not be continued.

Could the Commission say what the precise reasons were that prompted it to send this letter, who it
considers to blame for the whole situation and especially the delays, and whether it believes that there are
good reasons for the sums allocated for the completion of the work to be definitively forfeited?