WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Roadshows by the Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs and compliance with Community competition rules.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Internet, award of contract, competition law, provision of services, public awareness campaign, public contract

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/33

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

(17 July 2000)

Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
1.
dangerous substances (1) (the Seveso II Directive) does not contain any provisions laying down a maximum
number of potentially hazardous sites to be located in a certain area.

However, the Directive recognises that the danger of an accident and its possible consequences may be
increased because of the proximity of certain establishments and the dangerous substances present therein.
It therefore contains a new provision on domino effects that obliges the competent authority to identify
such establishments or groups of establishments and to ensure an exchange of information and co-
operation between the establishments.

Moreover, it contains a new provision recognising that the implications of major-accident hazards should
be taken into account in the land-use planning policies of the Member States. These are obliged to pursue
the aim of the Directive, i.e. prevention of major accidents and the limitation of their consequences for
man and the environment, through controls on the siting of new establishments, modifications to existing
establishments and new developments such as transport links, locations frequented by the public and
residential areas in the vicinity of existing establishments. In the long term, land-use planning policies shall
ensure that appropriate distances between hazardous establishments and residential areas are maintained.
Where such establishments already exist in the vicinity of residential areas, the Seveso II Directive calls for
consideration of additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people, in the context of
application of the above mentioned controls. The inclusion of this provision can be regarded as a major
step forward in the process of major accident mitigation.

No. The Seveso II Directive does not establish explicit concentration limits (or maximum numbers) of

2.
potentially hazardous sites in certain areas.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2001/C 113 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1648/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Roadshows by the Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs and compliance with Community

competition rules

The Belgian Ministry of Economic Affairs organises roadshows to familiarise the public with the Internet.
Apparently only Belgacom and no other service providers have been invited to participate.

Does the Commission consider that this is in line with Community competition rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

It would appear from the question put by the Honourable Member that the Belgian Ministry of Economic
Affairs asked Belgacom to organise roadshows to familiarise the public with the Internet, without issuing a
prior call for competition.

In order to determine the scope of the obligations to be met by the awarding authority under applicable
Community law (1), details are required on the subject of the contract concluded between the Ministry in

C 113 E/34

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

question and Belgacom. These obligations do in fact differ depending on the value of the contract and the
type of service concerned. When the value of the services listed in Annex IA of Directive 92/50/EEC
exceeds the thresholds laid down therein, a contract can only be awarded subject to compliance with a set
of obligations, which includes the issue of a Europe-wide call for competition prior to the award of the
contract. On the other hand, the only provisions which apply in order to carry out the services listed in
Annex IB are those relating to the rules to be followed in describing the subject of the contract and the
obligation to give notice of the results of the award procedure (2).

Thus, if the subject of the contract concluded with Belgacom were to consist primarily of the provision of
advertising services, as listed in Annex IA of the aforementioned Directive, or if, in any case, the value of
these services were to exceed that of any related services listed in Annex IB, the awarding authority ought
to have issued a prior call for competition in accordance with the rules of the Directive, subject to the
application thresholds laid down in Article 7 having been met.

On the other hand, if the main value of the contract was intended for a service covered by Annex IB of the
Directive, e.g. a category 24 educational service, the only obligations which would need to be checked for
their conformity with applicable Community law would be those concerning compliance with the rules to
be applied in describing the subject of the contract (cid:129) in particular, compliance with a specific hierarchy in
invoking technical specifications, and a notice of the results of the award procedure sent to the Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities. When awarding a contract for services covered by
Annex IB, it is not therefore compulsory to issue a Europe-wide call for competition.

The Commission will contact the Belgian authorities in order to determine the scope of the subject of the
contract in question and check the conformity of the award procedure with the applicable Community
rules.

(1)

and in particular Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992) as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive
97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ L 328, 28.11.1997).

(2) See in particular Article 9 of Directive 92/50/EEC, which refers to Articles 14 and 16 only.

(2001/C 113 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1649/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Radioactive smoke detectors

Radioactive smoke detectors containing americium-241 are banned in Germany and France although they
are permitted in other EU Member States, such as the Netherlands, where they are sold in DIY shops.

There are also optical smoke detectors which operate without radioactivity. In most fires in the home a lot
of smoke is generated (85-90 % of cases) and the optical devices respond after only seven minutes. An
ionisation smoke detector requires 15 to 20 minutes.

A radioactive smoke detector can cause lung cancer. Furthermore, when it is disposed of the radioactivity
enters the environment unchecked.

1.
Does the Commission agree that in the interest of public health and protection of the environment
radioactive smoke detectors should be banned not only in Germany and France but in all EU Member
States?

Is the Commission prepared, pending the introduction of a ban, to make it obligatory to indicate on
in words and in pictures, that they are devices with

2.
the packaging of radioactive smoke detectors,
radioactive radiation?