WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/00 by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Studies on EC enlargement.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: enlargement of the Union

C 103 E/240

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

(2001/C 103 E/281)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3079/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 September 2000)

Subject: Legal basis for Commission action

When roads in France and Belgium were blocked in the period around 10-15 September this year, the
Commission sent faxes to the French and Belgian authorities requesting information on the situation
regarding the movement of goods on their territory.
In the case of Belgium the Commission was
concerned at the situation at the borders with France and Germany and on the main roads. If they were
to be blocked the Belgian authorities would be regarded as obliged to provide alternative routes and
inform economic operators in neighbouring countries.

What is the Commission(cid:146)s legal basis for its actions, and would it do the same in the event of a normal
legal trade union dispute which produced a similar effect on freedom of movement?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2000)

The legal basis for the Commission action to which the honourable Member refers is Article 3(2) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 on the functioning of the internal market in
relation to the free movement of goods among the Member States (1).

invoke this legal basis when any obstacle as defined by Article 1 of
The Commission does and will
Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 occurs or is likely to occur. It concerns obstacles to the free movement of
goods among Member States which are attributable to a Member State, whether it involves action or
inaction on its part, which may constitute a breach of Articles 28-30 (ex Articles 30-36) of the EC Treaty
and which lead to serious disruption of the free movement of goods by physically or otherwise preventing,
delaying or diverting their import into, export from or transport across a Member State, thereby causing
serious loss to the individuals affected and requiring immediate action in order to prevent any continua-
tion, increase or intensification of the disruption or loss in question.

In its action, the Commission in compliance with Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 is not
challenging the exercise of fundamental rights as recognised in Member States, including the right or
freedom to strike. It is dealing solely with obstacles as defined by Article 1 of the Regulation, regardless of
whether or not they occur in connection with a trade union dispute.

(1) OJ L 337, 12.12.1998.

(2001/C 103 E/282)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3115/00

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Studies on EC enlargement

Could the Commission state whether it has carried out, or intends to carry out, a general survey of the
prospects for and problems associated with EU enlargement? Could the Commission also state what
vertical or horizontal studies have been carried out by its directorates-general?

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/241

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

to the Honourable Member and to

(2001/C 103 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3156/00

by Rainer Wieland (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Transport taxes on pleasure boats in Greece

Is the Commission aware that, pursuant to Article 11(1) of Act 2743/1999, transport taxes are payable to
the port police authority(cid:146)s special capital account in respect of private pleasure craft over 7 metres in
length (cid:129) irrespective of their country of registration (cid:129) which are not regularly anchored in Greek waters?

Does the Commission consider that this tax conflicts with the basic notion of a united Europe and with
Community law, particularly the principle of freedom of movement and the rule that EU Member States
may not charge other EU citizens for entry into their territory?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2000)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-1062/00 by Mr von
Wogau (1).

(1) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 150.

(2001/C 103 E/284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/00

by Fran(cid:231)oise GrossetŒte (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Rules governing family fruit growers and producers of potable spirits

There are no harmonised rules to date governing the occupation of family fruit grower, producer of
potable spirits and home distiller as such. Great disparities at national level continue to operate in respect
of this occupation. Does the Commission plan to draw up a set of Community rules which could be
applied to the pursuit of this occupation?

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2000)

Regulations governing the pursuit of professions do not as such come under Community law, which
means that the Member States are in theory free to set the conditions for the pursuit of professions in their
territory. In so doing, the Member States must nevertheless comply with Community rules on the free
movement of professionals.

With regard to the requirements and formalities imposed by the Member States in connection with the
pursuit of professional activities in their territory, such as the need for a permit, the Member States are
bound by the principles stated in Articles 43 and 49 (ex Articles 52 and 59) of the EC Treaty on the right