WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Enforcement of the Directive on the protection of wild birds in France.
Date: 2000-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, infringement of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), protection of animal life

C 136 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3182/00

by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Health and safety regulations

At present the national legal systems operating in the Member States are powerless to act against firms
from other Member States who fail to pay fines for breaches of health and safety laws in the Member State
concerned. Does the Commission intend to propose any initiatives to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 2000)

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member. The possibility of
bringing actions against companies based in other Member States has been considered in the area of health
and safety at work by the senior labour inspectors committee. Within this committee a working group
started in 1999 to consider under which circumstances the enforcement of one Member State(cid:146)s law in
relation to companies based in other Member States could be possible and where collaboration between
Member States would be required.

In this regard the working group is focusing on finding ways to ensure that actions concerning health and
safety offences will produce the same result when the responsible employer is based in a Member State
other than the State where the offence has occurred, as when the employer is based in the same Member
State.

Cross-border enforcement is closely linked to the question of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal
and administrative matters. Therefore, any analysis has to take into account the work that is being carried
out in this respect within the area of justice and home affairs.

The work that has been carried out so far in the field of mutual recognition, notably the Commission(cid:146)s
communication to the Council and the Parliament on mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal
matters (1), and the programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition that the
Council and the Commission are set to finalise by the end of the year 2000 (2), can be expected to provide
a useful basis for steps to be taken towards improved enforcement of sanctions for cross-border
infringements within the Union.

(1) COM(2000) 495 final.
(2) See Presidency conclusion No 37 of the European Council of Tampere.

(2001/C 136 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3183/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Directive on the protection of wild birds in France

In 1997 the European Court of Justice ruled against France in case C166/97 (Commission v. France). The
Court found France guilty of failure to comply, within the prescribed period, with the requirements of the
Directive on the protection of wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), as far as the Seine Estuary is concerned. Since
then, more than three years have passed and the area still remains unsatisfactorily protected, under the EU
Birds Directive. The European Commission, under Article 171, opened a new infringement procedure
against France in 1997. However, since then only a letter of formal notice has been sent to France for not
complying with the sentence of the Court of Justice. Recalling that the normal deadline of two months for

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/201

Member States to reply to letters of formal notice has not been respected in this case and considering that
Greece from July 2000 was condemned by the Court of Justice to pay a daily penalty of € 20 000 under a
previous judgement on a similar case, the Commission is asked to specify why it has not taken any further
legal actions against France, and what causes all these delays.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(17 November 2000)

The Commission is pleased to inform the Honourable Member that, contrary to what was stated in the
written question, the Court of Justice(cid:146)s ruling in case C-166/97, Commission v. France, was handed down
in 1999 and not 1997, that the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to France in accordance with
Article 228 (formerly Article 171) of the EC Treaty in 1999, and not in 1997, and that the deadline for
replying to said letter of formal notice was met by the French authorities.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the ruling is in the process of implementa-
tion by the French Government.

(2001/C 136 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3184/00

by Carlos Ripoll y Mart(cid:237)nez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: EQUAL programme

At the meetings the Commission has held with officials from the various Member States regarding the
EQUAL programme, it has undertaken to submit a document laying down guidelines and formulas for the
partnerships under the programme.

1.
Given that the deadlines for the Community programme EQUAL are rather tight, when will the
Commission comply with its undertaking to submit a document on partnerships, since this is essential to
meet the objectives of the programme?

2. What criteria will be used for allocating Community aid if a partnership is submitted between an
objective 1 region and a region not covered by the objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

The Commission recognises that the correct establishment of the development partnerships in all Member
States is extremely important for the good development of the EQUAL initiative. This question is the
subject of detailed discussions, both at bilateral and multilateral level, within the current negotiations with
Member States concerning the approval of the draft national Community initiative programmes. The
outcome of this close collaboration can already be seen in the establishment of (cid:145)questions and answers(cid:146),
which set out interpretation of and agreements on certain points of the initiative, including the partner-
ships.

It is true that, for certain Member States, it is also important to indicate clear criteria for determining the
type of financing in cases where a partnership project exists between an area in objective 1 and another
area outside that objective. The Commission will work within the aforementioned negotiations to ensure
that pragmatic rules are established in the Member States to settle this problem.