WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/00 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Seals Directive 83/129/EEC.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, EU statistics, animal skin, infringement of EU law, marketing, seal

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/35

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

(20 June 2000)

The general principles governing protection of workers and the general public against the dangers arising
from ionising radiation are laid down in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down
basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the
dangers arising from ionizing radiation (1). This replaces, inter alia, Council Directive 80/836/Euratom of
15 July 1980 (2), which still forms the legal basis for the national radiation protection legislation currently
in force in most of the Member States. Title IV of the new Directive requires that all practices resulting in
exposure to ionising radiation have to be justified taking into account economic, social and other benefits
in relation to the health detriment they may cause.

including those
According to the information available to the Commission most Member States,
mentioned, have introduced a system of licensing for smoke detectors operating with ionising chambers
because their use is justified due to the special advantageous technical performances.

The basic safety standards directive stipulates that no reporting and authorisation for practices is needed if
the total quantity of radioactivity does not exceed the derived exemption levels. If exemption levels are
exceeded, no reporting is required for apparatus containing radioactive substances provided that they are
type-approved by a Member State(cid:146)s competent authority and are constructed as a sealed source, if given
dose rates are not exceeded and if conditions for disposal have been specified by the competent authority.

In recognition of the particular problems of consumer products containing radioactive substances, the
Commission has regularly reviewed the situation within the Member States. A working group established
under the terms of Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty is currently examining the most recent trends and
developments as to how the Member States have adopted the new basic safety standards directive
requirements in respect of consumer goods containing radioactive substances. As soon as the working
group has completed its work, the Commission will reconsider the situation and may take steps towards
harmonisation of national regulations or administrative acts for the manufacture, placing on the market
and disposal of such devices.

In addition, it should be noted that smoke detectors are construction products falling within the scope of
Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products (3). In this context, the
Commission has issued a mandate to the European committee for standardisation (CEN) to develop a
harmonised standard for these products. Once the European standard is available, expected to be in 2001,
the Community marking of such products will become possible and this will be accompanied by
information about the performance characteristics of the product.

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996.
(2) OJ L 246, 17.9.1980.
(3) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2001/C 113 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1653/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Seals Directive 83/129/EEC

In reply to my earlier question (P-0395/00) (1) concerning the implementation of the Seals Directive (83/
129/EEC) (2), the Commission gave an assurance that it had no reason to believe that the requirements of
the Directive were not being carried out correctly by the Member States, while also referring to the
miscoding of seal pup products. According to Eurostat figures, imports of whitecoat products in Italy for
1998 totalled ECU 544 000, with Greece, Belgium and Luxembourg, Austria and France also registering a
substantial value of whitecoat imports for 1998. Greece apparently exported whitecoat products in 1998

C 113 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

for a total value of ECU 605 000, with Italy and France also registering large quantities. Denmark claims
only minimal imports and exports, whereas Greece registers large exports to Denmark and Italy large
imports from Denmark.

1.

Has the Commission examined these statistics?

2.
Has the Commission requested further information from the Member States on these worrying
statistics which are unlikely to be entirely due to presumed miscoding, as suggested in its previous reply?

Does the Commission agree that these statistics may show a failure of certain Member States to

3.
comply with Article 1(1) of the Seals Directive?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this situation?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

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

(19 June 2000)

The Commission agrees that the question of continued alleged infringements of Community legislation
mentioning imports and exports in Member States of seal pup products, as suggested by Eurostat statistics,
deserves to be clarified.

Consequently it undertakes to follow this matter up with Member States where necessary and will inform
the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2001/C 113 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive and national environmental laws

The Commission states that a study on the environmental impact of the Iron Rhine is needed since (cid:145)the
Dutch section of the route passes through areas which are environmentally sensitive and are covered by
the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and wild fauna and flora(cid:146) (E-0525/00) (2).

With this answer the Commission implies that the international treaties on the Iron Rhine to which
Question E-2381/99 (3) refers are subordinate to the Habitats Directive and to Dutch environmental laws.
However, the Treaty of Vienna clearly states that international law takes precedence over national law.
Moreover, one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty is Russia, which is
not a Member State.

international

In its answer to Question E-2381/99 the Commission took the view that (cid:145)the question about the order of
importance of
in this case, since the
application of the Community law will not necessarily obstruct the application of the treaties(cid:146). In view of
its position in E-0525/00, legal clarity must be created as soon as possible on whether or not the Habitats
Directive and Netherlands environmental laws are subordinate to the international treaties referred to in
E-2381/99.

legislation is not relevant

treaties and national