WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/00 by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission. WTO challenge by Canada to French Chrysotile Ban.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, asbestos, marketing restriction

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/7

(2001/C 340 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3957/00

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Rule of law in Romania

Is the Commission aware that the Romanian Justice Minister, Valeria Stoica, recently had the organisation
(cid:145)Pro-Transylvania(cid:146) declared unlawful, despite the universal right of association?

If not, when will the Commission institute an inquiry into the matter?

If so, does the Commission feel that such conduct may be reconciled with the principles of the rule of law?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2001)

The 2000 Regular Report from the Commission on Romania(cid:146)s Progress Towards Accession (1) observed
that the freedom to associate is respected in Romania and that the treatment of national minorities is
satisfactory. Furthermore, the Romanian constitution provides for freedom of association (cid:129) with the
exception of organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the state (including the
sovereignty and integrity of Romania).

It is the Commission(cid:146)s understanding that the articles of establishment of (cid:145)Pro-Transilvania(cid:146) call for (cid:145)regional
autonomy(cid:146) for Transilvania. This has led to a detailed legal debate within Romania over whether or not
(cid:145)regional autonomy(cid:146), as used in this context, can be interpreted as being contrary to the integrity of the
Romanian state and is therefore unconstitutional. After several hearings in lower courts, the Court of
formulation, were
Appeal decided that Pro-Transilvania(cid:146)s articles of establishment,
unconstitutional. A direct consequence of this ruling is that the organisation cannot be given a legal status.

in their current

The legal arguments related to this case are complex and involve an assessment of whether the provisions
of the Romanian constitution, as have been interpreted in this case, constitute an unjustified prohibition
on the freedom of association.
the Commission to assess the
interpretation by Romanian courts of the Romanian constitution. Since Romania is a signatory to the
European Convention on Human Rights, and considering that domestic appeal procedures have been
exhausted, the appropriate body to assess such a case is the European Court of Human Rights.

is not within the competence of

It

The criteria for accession to the Union, as set out at the 1993 Copenhagen European Council, make
explicit reference to the need for (cid:145)stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human
rights and respect for and protection of minorities(cid:146). The Commission is fully committed to ensuring that
this condition for accession is respected and will take up any relevant cases in its regular reports on
candidate countries(cid:146) progress towards accession and in its bilateral relations with them.

(1) COM(2000) 710 final.

(2001/C 340 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3972/00

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: WTO challenge by Canada to French Chrysotile Ban

On 18 September 2000 the WTO announced that the EU(cid:146)s defence of the French ban on chrysotile had
been upheld. The hard work of the EU defence team and the support of the EU(cid:146)s expert witnesses were

C 340 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

pivotal to this victory. Does the Commission wish to thank the EU lawyers, led by Theofanis Christoforou,
and experts, including Dr Morris Greenberg from the UK and Dr Barry Castleman from the USA, for their
dedication and perseverance?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2001)

The Commission is very pleased with the conclusions of the panel that, on 18 September 2000, confirmed
the consistency of the French ban on asbestos with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and it is
grateful to all those who have contributed to achieving such a positive result. The Commission hopes that
the panel(cid:146)s final conclusion will be confirmed by the WTO Appellate Body.

(2001/C 340 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3989/00

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

(21 December 2000)

Subject: Swedish public procurement law in relation to EU directive

A number of local politicians and local authority procurement officers in Sweden are now in revolt against
the Swedish law on public procurement. Many local authorities take the view that the law prevents them
from requiring companies to comply with social policy criteria, such as environmental considerations.

The law on public procurement was enacted in 1994 to bring the provisions into line with EU legislation
but many local politicians believe that Sweden does not need such strict rules as it currently has. A
recently published survey shows that Sweden has the most stringent public procurement law in the whole
of Europe.

Has the Commission studied the various national laws on public procurement and does the Commission
share the survey(cid:146)s analysis that Sweden has been unnecessarily strict in its interpretation of the EU directive
on this matter and could therefore relax its rules on public procurement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2001)

The Member States are obliged to take all measures necessary to comply with Community law and, in
law. When
particular, to take the measures required to transpose Community directives into national
checking these national transposing measures, which it does as guardian of the Treaties, the Commission
only ensures that all Community provisions have been correctly transposed. In this respect, it ensures in
particular that provisions which establish rights for tenderers on the one hand, and public contract
awarders on the other, have been transposed correctly.

As regards public procurement, the Commission wishes to remind the Honourable Member that putting all
the provisions of the directives together does not make a uniform Community legislation in that several of
the obligations pursuant to the directives allow the Member States some interpretative leeway concerning
the means and scope of the measures taken. Moreover, in its Judgment of 20 September 1988 in Case
31/87 (Beentjes, Grounds of the Judgment 20), the Court of Justice confirmed that the Member States were
therefore free to maintain or adopt substantive and procedural rules in regard to public works contracts on
condition that
in particular the
prohibitions resulting from the principles laid down in the Treaty in regard to the right of establishment
and the freedom to provide services. Thus for example, some Member States, such as Sweden, have
provisions in their legislation for an environmental award criterion. The public works directives (1) and the
EC Treaty do not oppose this as such, bearing in mind that such a criterion would be directly linked to the
subject of the public procurement and would involve economic gain for the contracting authority.
Similarly, the Member States are allowed to provide for provisions which apply below the threshold,
provided that they are in line with Community law.

the relevant provisions of Community law,

they comply with all