WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Progress with regard to the Corpus juris.
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, EU publication, approximation of laws, corpus juris (EU), credit transfer, criminal law, fraud, industrial counterfeiting

C 81 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

Answer by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The conditions for marketing and commissioning machinery and mobile machinery fall within the
is why Directive 98/37/EC on machinery (1) harmonises such
competence of
conditions. Consequently, any machine that complies with the essential requirements of the directive can
be sold in any Member State.

the Community. That

The use of such machines is also harmonised at Community level. However, Directive 89/655/EEC (2), as
amended, provides that
the Member States can lay down requirements needed to ensure people(cid:146)s
protection, provided it does not involve any modification of the machines.

On the other hand, regulations governing the use on public roads of mobile machinery fall within the
competence of the Member States, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. The Member States
may thus lay down the requirements they consider necessary to ensure safe use on the roads,
in
compliance with the rules of the Treaty and especially Articles 28 and 30 (ex Articles 30 and 36) of the
EC Treaty.

The Commission has on a number of occasions asked the manufacturers of mobile machinery for
information on the difficulties they apparently have to cope with. No information has yet been received.
Consequently, given the lack of any hard evidence, the Commission does not share the honourable
Member(cid:146)s view on the existence of barriers to trade that apparently stem from national rules governing the
use on public roads of mobile machinery.

(1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the

laws of the Member States relating to machinery (OJ L 207, 23.7.1998).

(2) Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for

the use of work equipment by workers at work (OJ L 393, 30.12.1989).

(2001/C 81 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2021/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Progress with regard to the Corpus juris

Concerning a proposal for a Council directive on combating fraud and forgeries in connection with non-
cash transactions, the Commission has adopted a new approach to the harmonisation of the Member
States(cid:146) legal systems. The objective is no longer to achieve textual uniformity regarding the definition of
criminal offences in each of the Member States but simply to achieve a precise definition of the result to be
achieved in all Member States. The projected catalogue of European law has clearly been abandoned.

In view of this:

1. What progress has been made with the Corpus juris project?

2. What have been the costs of this project?

3. Does the Commission consider that there is any point in continuing with the project in view of the

new regulatory approach referred to above?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The Commission would first point out that the proposal for a draft framework decision on combating
fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment (1)
is not linked with the Corpus juris. This
proposal is aimed at ensuring that fraud and counterfeiting involving non-cash means of payment are
recognised as criminal offences in all Member States and punished with effective, proportionate and

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/131

dissuasive sanctions. According to Article 34(2)(b) (ex Article K.6) of the Treaty on European Union, the
Council may adopt framework decisions for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of
the Member States which shall be binding upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved but shall
leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods and shall not entail direct effect. Within
the third pillar, textual uniformity could therefore at utmost be achieved in very exceptional cases.

in particular, as part of

The work of the Corpus juris (2) relating to the protection under criminal law of the Communities(cid:146) financial
interests was carried out by the University of Utrecht which received a Commission subsidy of €493 000
(experts, organisation, translation, publication). Part of the comparative study of the Corpus juris, approx.
2 000 pages long, has already been published (3). The Commission feels that there is a case for continuing
the work,
the Intergovernmental Conference. The aim is to enlighten the
Commission on the question of the European prosecutor, Here, the Honourable Member is referred to
the answer given by the Commission to Written Question E-2596/1999 by Mr Hannan (4), and to the
Commission Communication of 28 June 2000 (5). The Commission is preparing a further contribution to
its opinion relating to the Intergovernmental Conference on the protection of the Communities(cid:146) financial
interests, the anti-fraud campaign in order to adopt an overall strategic approach (6) which will include the
theme of protection under criminal
interests and the European
prosecutor.

the Communities(cid:146)

financial

law of

(1) COM(1999) 438 final.
(2) The Corpus juris is available on the Internet: http://www.law.uu.nl/wiarda/corpus/index1.htm.
(3)

Implementation of the Corpus juris in the Member States, Mr. Delmas-Marty/J.A.E Vervaele, Intersentia, Utrecht,
2000.

(4) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 79.
(5) COM(2000) 358 final.
(6) COM(2000) 34 final.

(2001/C 81 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/00

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a federation of nation states by the German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer

Is the European Council considering the proposal made as part of the preparation of the IGC by the
German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer, as regards extending the issues which might be covered by the
reform of Treaties scheduled for this year? Does the Council think that the reinforced cooperation
mechanism would legally permit, over and above cooperation on specific issues,
institutional reforms
such as Mr Fischer is proposing? Would the use of reinforced cooperation allow the setting-up, by only
certain Member States, of a government and a two chamber parliament duplicating the European Union(cid:146)s
Council, Commission and Parliament?

Reply

(10 October 2000)

The Honourable Member should be aware that the reflections made by Mr Joschka Fischer on extending
the issues which might be covered by the reform of the Treaties scheduled for this year were not addressed
either to the Council nor to the Intergovernmental Conference as such. His specific views have therefore
not been discussed. Indeed, it would be entirely inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment
on the view of any individual member.

The Honourable Member is probably aware, moreover, that the Council has no role whatsoever in the
work of the Conference of the 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.