WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/00 by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Water fluoridation.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, competence of the Member States, drinking water, health control, water treatment

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,

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/59

The limit set out in the drinking water Directive is 1,5 milligram per litre (mg/l), which according to the
view of the World Health Organisation (WHO) as expressed in its drinking water quality guidelines
represents a good balance between the positive and negative effects of fluoride. Positive effects start around
0,5 mg/l up to 2 mg/l. The more the concentration shifts upwards from 2 mg/l the more the risk of
negative effects is increased i.e. dental fluorosis or even skeletal fluorosis at very high concentrations.

The Commission is not considering, at present, the revision of the legislation, as the new drinking water
Directive has yet to be transposed (by 25 December 2000) and implemented. However, the Commission
will examine if there is any new significant evidence since the adoption of the Directive, which can suggest
a modification of the current position. In order to have an appropriate update on this matter, the
Commission will consult its scientific committee on toxicity ecotoxicity and the environment.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
(2) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.

(2001/C 72 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Council

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Article 13 and the intergovernmental conference

The new Article 13 introduced during the revision of the Treaty of Amsterdam clearly marks a step
forward, in that it commits the European Union to action to combat discrimination based on sex, ethnic
or racial origin, age, disability, religion or belief, or sexual orientation.

That said, it does not enable individuals who suffer discrimination on any of the aforementioned grounds
to initiate legal proceedings in national courts.

With the next intergovernmental conference in mind, does the Council intend to give Article 13 direct
effect, so that European citizens can invoke it in their national courts?

Reply

(18/19 September 2000)

the Council has no role in the Conference of the
As the Honourable Member is probably aware,
Representatives of the Governments of the Member States and is therefore unable to comment on work
being undertaken by the Conference. The European Parliament, on the other hand, has two observers who
are closely involved in the work of the Conference at the preparatory level.

The Presidency would recall that the IGC is currently considering possible Treaty revisions to ensure that
the Union(cid:146)s institutions can continue to work efficiently after enlargement. To date no proposal has been
tabled relating to the specific issue raised by the honourable member.