WRITTEN QUESTION P-3092/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Levying of fines in the EU.
Date: 2000-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, approximation of laws, criminal law, equal treatment, fine, highway code, offence

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/179

This approach, which the Commission strongly advised against, will result in a further delay of payments
for PAD and particularly for the CDG. The new contract for PAD will be issued in the next few days. If
PAD signs and returns the contract immediately, it can expect to receive the decentralised funds by the end
of November or beginning of December. PAD will then be required to forward the Community funds to
the schools without further delay. However, subdividing the contract in this way will lead to an even
greater delay for the CDG, as an entirely new contract must go through the various stages of financial
control within the Commission. The Commission will nevertheless do all it can to keep delays for both
organisations to a minimum.

Since these problems will only arise in this year of transition to the second phase of the Socrates
programme, similar delays are not expected in future.

(2001/C 136 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3092/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2000)

Subject: Levying of fines in the EU

In Finland, fines are means-tested so that a day-fine constitutes a fixed proportion of the daily earnings of
the offender: one sixtieth of his net income. For this purpose, (cid:145)net income(cid:146) is defined on the basis of the
offender(cid:146)s mean monthly income as calculated according to the most recent tax assessment, less certain
taxes and charges laid down by regulation and less a fixed allowance for basic expenditure.

Day-fines are imposed for a minimum of one day and a maximum of 120. The total amount payable is the
amount per day multiplied by the number of days. No maximum amount is laid down by law. In practice,
exceeding the speed limit by around 30 km/hr may result in a fine amounting to hundreds of thousands of
marks. Fines as swingeing as this are out of all proportion, for example, to fines imposed by courts for
crimes of violence. In a crime of violence, another person(cid:146)s physical integrity is violated. In a situation
where exceeding the speed limit does not seriously endanger traffic, the offence and the penalty for it
ought to be in reasonable proportion with each other.

European Union Member States impose fines in different ways. In some countries clear maximum amounts
are laid down for daily instalments of fines and for the total fine which may be imposed. In setting day-
fines, account is taken, for example, of the offender(cid:146)s income, property and liability for maintenance.

Is the Commission aware of the unequal treatment of citizens with regard to speeding fines in relation to
other offences? Has the Commission reviewed the various practices of the Member States with regard to
fines? What view does the Commission take of disproportionately large fines? Will the Commission
harmonise speeding fines?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

While the Commission is generally of the opinion that fines should be proportionate to the severity of the
offence for which they were imposed, it must be acknowledged that it is very difficult to determine in
individual cases whether this criterion has been met or not. Different Member States may have different
sets of values and what would appear proportionate in one Member State may be seen as disproportionate
in another.

The Commission is aware of the fact that there are significant differences among Member States in relation
to fines for speeding offences. There is no legislation at Union level that sets maximum amounts to be
imposed in such cases. The Union Convention on driving disqualifications adopted by the Council on
17 June 1998 (1) does not harmonise penalties for road traffic offences. This is thus a matter entirely at the
Member States(cid:146) discretion.

C 136 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The special meeting of the European Council in Tampere in October 1999, on the creation of an area of
freedom, security and justice, identified priority areas for the approximation of sanctions. Conclusion 23
calls for legislation to be adopted that would foresee severe sanctions against the crime of trafficking in
human beings and economic exploitation of migrants, and conclusion 48 (cid:129) at least in the first instance (cid:129)
limits efforts to agree on common sanctions to a number of sectors of particular relevance. Fines for
excessive speed on public roads do not appear among these.

(1) OJ C 216, 10.7.1998.

(2001/C 136 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3094/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Thermonuclear fusion programme evaluation

Will the Commission publish an outline CV of all of the members of the panel responsible for the recently
published 5-year evaluation of the sub-programme on thermonuclear fusion within the Euratom Frame-
work Programme so as to clarify their independence in this matter?

Could the Commission also indicate how these persons were nominated and selected for this task?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The composition of all the panels of experts who have carried out the five-year assessments of the
framework programmes (FPs) and specific programmes including the subprogramme on fusion has been
made available on the Cordis web-site since 24 April 2000 (www.cordis.lu/fp5/panels.htm). The panel lists
include an outline curriculum vitae of all the experts.

The members of the panels were appointed by the Commission on the basis of suggestions by the Member
States. The criteria for the selection of the highly qualified experts panels included an independence
criterion,
i.e. not be or have been programme contractors, members of or experts to any programme
committee during the assessed period.

(2001/C 136 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3095/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Expansion of Manises airport in Valencia (Spain)

(4 October 2000)

The Spanish Airports and Air Navigation agency (AENA) has finalised a master plan under which the
airport at Valencia would be expanded, with a view to tripling its existing operating capacity. This
expansion, which will allow for as many as 100 flights to be handled every hour, will also triple the
current noise pollution level at the airport, which is located in the vicinity of the municipalities of Manises
and Quart de Poblet. Furthermore, it could have other harmful effects on the environment, including soil
erosion and deterioration, gas emissions, and an increased incidence of sewage and dumping.

In accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) (as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2)) on
the assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment, the nature of the planned work is
such that an environmental
the
impact assessment must be carried out,
aforementioned Directive, which refers to airports with a runway length of 2 100 m or more. However,
the master plan submitted by AENA contains no more than a brief paragraph entitled (cid:145)Study of the impact

in line with Annex I of