WRITTEN QUESTION P-3804/00 by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation 615/98/EC.
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Regulation, carcase, export refund, interpretation of the law, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

C 163 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

The problem is that the persons responsible for checking the noise level of vehicles do not have access to
the type-approval documents and thus to the noise levels contained therein to enable them to use the
stationary method. The lack of
information concerning the stationary method, combined with the
obstacles to use of the dynamic method means that there is no monitoring of the levels of noise emitted
by vehicles.

In view of the fact that the main source of urban noise is traffic, and that certain vehicles which are
extremely noisy, but which are difficult to monitor for the reasons stated above, have an obvious impact
on the level of urban noise, will the Commission state the admissible noise levels for the stationary
method?

Is there a database containing noise levels measured using the stationary method, figures which should
appear in vehicles(cid:146) type-approval documents? Does the Commission intend to make available this kind of
information, in accordance with the principle of the maximum level of transparency and of the right to
information of EU citizens?

(1) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 349, 13.12.1978, p. 21.
(3) OJ L 226, 18.8.1997, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2001)

European Directives concerning the limitation of noise from road vehicles comprise two testing methods,
namely a dynamic (cid:145)full throttle(cid:146) test and a stationary test. Limit values in terms of dB(A) are associated with
the dynamic test method in order to ensure that new vehicles appearing on the road have an acceptable
noise level. In this respect, the Commission is of the opinion that the control of the noise levels of new
vehicles is adequately covered by the dynamic testing method.

The stationary method is indeed intended to enable subsequent checks on vehicles in use, by comparing
the measured value in use with the result of the stationary test during type-approval. The results of the
stationary test are included in the type approval documents. These type approval documents are
distributed to all Member States by the Member State issuing the Community type approval. On the
basis of this information, each Member State has the opportunity to set up a database of noise levels of all
marketed vehicles for the purpose of checks in use. Some Member States have already put in place such a
database, which is indeed a very useful tool for enforcing acceptable noise levels on the road. Additionally,
since the entering into force of Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 amending Directive 70/156/
EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor
vehicles and their trailers (1) (cid:129) for passenger cars and heavy duty vehicles (cid:129) and Council Directive 92/61/
EEC of 30 June 1992 relating to the type-approval of two or three-wheel motor vehicles (cid:129) for two- and
three-wheelers (cid:129) the result of the stationary test is also included in the certificate of conformity that
accompanies each vehicle. With this information, law enforcement authorities of the Member States that
require these certificates to be kept in the vehicle, have the necessary information readily available in order
to fully assess in use noise requirements.

(1) OJ L 225, 10.8.1992.

(2001/C 163 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3804/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation 615/98/EC

(29 November 2000)

The first sentence of Article 5(3) of Regulation 615/98/EC (1) reads as follows: (cid:145)The export refund shall not
be paid for animals which died during transport or for animals for which the competent authority
considers, in the light of the documents referred to in paragraph 2, the reports on the checks referred to in

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/213

Article 4 and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1, that the Directive
on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with.(cid:146)

In this connection, can the Commission explain:

1. Who has the power to communicate (cid:145)other elements(cid:146) to the competent authority?

2.

Is it to be regarded as unlawful assumption of authority for an animal transport inspector responsible
for carrying out transport checks to enter his own comments on the control copy T5?

If so, can the Commission guarantee that (cid:145)other elements(cid:146) are in fact communicated effectively to the
competent authorities by other means than entry on the control copy T5?

(1) OJ L 82, 19.3.1998, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2001)

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 applies to live bovine animals covered by an export declaration
for the purpose of receiving an export refund. If, during the animals(cid:146) transportation to their first unloading
is established that Council Directive 91/628/EEC of
in the third country of
19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC
and 91/496/EEC (1) was not complied with, the export refund is not payable.

final destination,

it

The Commission would like to comment as follows in answer to the questions raised:

1. Responsibility for applying the Community provisions on export refunds rests with the national
bodies which each Member State has designated for that purpose. In accordance with their managerial
autonomy, it is for the national bodies which have been assigned the task of assessing compliance
with the rules to determine who is entitled to pass (cid:145)all other elements(cid:146) on to the competent authority.

2. Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 stipulates that certifying compliance with the requirements
of paragraph 2 is a matter for the official veterinarian at the exit point. Such certification is to be
recorded on the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the Community
(either in Section J of the control copy T5 or in the most appropriate place on the national
document).

Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 stipulates that the refund (cid:145)shall not be paid (cid:133) for animals for
which the competent authority considers, in the light of (cid:133) all other elements at its disposal (cid:133)(cid:146) that the
Directive on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with. The comments of an
inspector who is responsible for checking a consignment of animals may constitute (cid:145)all other elements(cid:146)
within the meaning of Article 5(3).

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2001/C 163 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3805/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

On 23 November 2000 the Portuguese authorities confirmed that a Friesian dairy cow born in the
Hanover area on 23 September 1995 and imported into the island of San Miguel on 27 October 1998
was infected by BSE.

The scientific evidence currently available shows that the incubation period for BSE in cattle is between
four and five years. It is therefore clear that the animal concerned was infected in Germany and not on the
Azores.