WRITTEN QUESTION E-1427/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), John Bowis (PPE-DE), Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Dell'Alba (TDI), Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE), José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE), Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN), Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE), Dana Scallon (PPE-DE), Mariotto Segni (UEN), Francesco Speroni (TDI), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Margie Sudre (PPE-DE), Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE), Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) and Jürgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Commission's role in upholding the Treaties with specific reference to the male descendants of the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EU law, European Commission, Italy, freedom of movement, interpretation of the law, powers of the institutions (EU)

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/57

(2001/C 72 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1426/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: (Consolidated) Treaty violations

Would the Commission accept that, if a Member State deprived a national of that state or of any other
European Union state of the right to enter freely into that Member State, it would constitute a prima facie
violation of Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty Establishing the
European Community dealing respectively with free movement of persons, services and capital and right of
establishment?

(2001/C 72 E/066)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1427/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), John Bowis (PPE-DE),
Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE), Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE), Gianfranco Dell(cid:146)Alba (TDI),
Carlo Fatuzzo (PPE-DE), Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE), Jacqueline Foster (PPE-DE),
JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE),
Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN),
Lennart SacrØdeus (PPE-DE), Dana Scallon (PPE-DE), Mariotto Segni (UEN),
Francesco Speroni (TDI), Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE), Margie Sudre (PPE-DE),
Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE), Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE), Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) and
J(cid:252)rgen Zimmerling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s role in upholding the Treaties with specific reference to the male descendants of

the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy

Can the Commission explain how, given not only the obligation under Article 6 of the Consolidated
Version of the Treaty on European Union for the Union (cid:145)to respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(cid:146) but also the
provisions under Articles 39 and 43 of Title III of the Consolidation Version of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, dealing respectively with the free movement of persons and the right of establish-
ment as well as the obligations of the Commission under Article 211 to ensure that the provisions of that
Treaty are applied, the Commission has reached the conclusion (as indicated by Mr Vitorino(cid:146)s answer to
Written Question P-0475/00) (1) that the restrictions placed on the movement of the male descendants of
the Houses of Habsburg and Savoy as well as the denial to them of other civil rights as a result of
provisions contained in the Austrian and Italian constitutions do (cid:145)not come within the jurisdiction of the
Commission(cid:146)?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 228.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1425/00, E-1426/00 and E-1427/00
given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The free movement of persons is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Union(cid:146)s citizens by
Community law: Article 18(1) (former Article 8a) confers on the Union(cid:146)s citizens a general right to free
movement outside the sphere of any economic activity. Nevertheless, this Article constitutes an additional
legal basis which does not replace the specific legal bases, viz. Articles 39 and 43 (former Articles 48 and
52). At present, the right of residence is governed by the provisions of ten or so directives and regulations
which are listed in the second report on citizenship. (1)

The right to free movement is not absolute. It is exercised subject to the limitations and conditions laid
down in the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. Thus the right to move freely can be
limited by the Member States, in particular on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (2),
while complying with the provisions of Directive 64/221/EEC (3). The Commission would draw the

C 72 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to its communication on the special measures concerning the movement
and residence of citizens of the Union which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
public health. (4) The communication analyses the experience gained in applying this Directive, notably in
the light of the Court of Justice(cid:146)s case-law, and formulates recommendations for the Member States. It
transpires that the ban on entering the Community is not always in itself a violation of Community law on
the free movement of the Union(cid:146)s citizens.

In any event, any citizen who considers himself harmed by a measure taken against him by a Member
State can have recourse to the competent jurisdictions, the national courts being the first guarantor of
Community law. The same applies if the person in question claims to be the victim of a violation of the
rights recognised by the European Convention on Human Rights. Here, the Commission would point out
that it is not the guarantor of compliance with that Convention.

On several occasions, the Court of Justice has recognised that the Commission is not required to start
infringement proceedings every time it feels that Community law is being violated but that it has a
discretionary power precluding the right of individuals to require it to adopt a particular position (5).

(1) COM(97) 230 final.
(2) See Article 39(3), Article 46(1) and Article 55 of the EC Treaty.
(3) Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the
movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or
public health (OJ 56, 4.4.1964).

(4) COM(1999) 372 final.
(5) Case 87/89 [1990] ECR I 1981.

(2001/C 72 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/00

by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Water fluoridation

Across the European Union individual Member States are taking their own action against artificial water
fluoridation. It is understood that Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy have all ceased
fluoridation or refused to implement it on the grounds of scientific controversy and health concerns.

What action, if any, is the commission taking to investigate the effects of artificial water fluoridation on
human health? What is the Commission(cid:146)s view on the concerns expressed by other Member States on the
adverse effects of fluoridation? Does the Commission plan to introduce any directives on water fluorida-
tion?

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

(19 June 2000)

Drinking water quality is regulated in the Community by Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980
relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), which will be replaced by
25 December 2003 by the recently adopted new drinking water Directive 98/83/EC of the Council of
3 November 1998 (2). In both Directives there is a limit concerning the maximum admissible concentra-
tion of fluoride in drinking water, regardless of its origin, i.e. naturally present or artificially added. The
matter of fluoridation of water supplies lies within the Member States(cid:146) responsibility and the Commission
is not concerned as long as the maximum limit set out in the Directive is respected. The policy Member
States follow on this matter depends on a number of factors taking into account local customs and habits
and can be very different
fluoridation is a
controversial
issue because of the positive or negative effects fluoride might have, depending on the
concentration of the substance in the drinking water.

from one Member State to the other. Unquestionably,