WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/00 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Mineral water from Greenland.
Date: 2000-12-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greenland, environmental protection, ice, marketing, mineral water, trade restriction

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/75

(2001/C 187 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3872/00

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Mineral water from Greenland

A group of businessmen in Greenland have decided to bottle the pure ice which covers four fifths of the
island and market it as mineral water.

Consumption of mineral water is growing by 10 % per year and this product from Greenland could
therefore easily invade European markets. Can the Commission take steps to put a stop to the use of Arctic
ice and the possible marketing of the island(cid:146)s mineral water?

Can the Commission also introduce appropriate environmental protection measures, since this practice will
eventually damage the planet, already endangered by destructive human activities, in particular the ice cap,
which is receding at a rate of 45,8 cubic metres every year?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

Greenland does not form part of the Community or of its customs territory. Relations with Greenland are
governed by decisions on the association of
the overseas countries and territories (OCT) with the
Community. The trade provisions relating to OCTs prescribe that their products shall benefit from the
principle of free circulation of goods, meaning that they shall be imported into the Community free of
customs duties and charges having equivalent effect, and that the Community shall not apply quantitative
restrictions or measures having equivalent effect to imports of products originating in the OCTs. There are
two exceptions to these provisions: a general exception for measures justified on grounds of public
morality, protection of health, protection of
the environment, etc, and the possibility to introduce
safeguard measures under certain conditions. In this particular case, it appears that the environmental
exception would be the only exception potentially applicable but the Commission does not believe, at this
stage, that such a trade restriction could be justified on environmental grounds.

(2001/C 187 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3876/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 December 2000)

Subject: Common foreign and security policy (chemical weapons for Turkey)

In answer to Question P-2910/00 the Council informed me that under the provisions of Article 22 of the
TEU any Member State or the Commission may refer to the Council any question relating to the common
foreign and security policy and may submit proposals to the Council. In view of the importance of the
specific points in Written Questions E-1203/00, E-1204/00 and E-1205/00 for the common foreign and
security policy it would seem appropriate for the Commission to make use of this possibility.

1. Will the Commission (cid:145)submit proposals to the Council(cid:146) in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU to
obtain information from the University of Munich on the German provenance (Buck and Depfag) of the
shell bodies used by the Turkish army in a chemical attack against the Kurdish PKK movement on 11 May
1999? If not, why is the Commission refusing to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the
TEU given the importance of this question for the common foreign and security policy?