WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Delays in rescue operations after road accidents because of secrecy surrounding technical innovations in cars.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: innovation, intellectual property, safety device, transport accident, vehicle

C 174 E/250

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

The priorities listed under the short term have been selected on the basis that it is realistic to expect that
Turkey can complete or take them substantially forward by the end of 2001. The priorities listed under the
medium term are expected to take more than one year to complete although work should, wherever
possible, also begin on them during 2001. Turkey is expected to adopt before long a National Programme
for the adoption of the Acquis which should be compatible with the Accession Partnership.

With regard to Armenia, the Commission(cid:146)s Regular Report notes that (cid:145)Turkey continues to further develop
mutual relations with (cid:133) the Caucasus(cid:146) and that (cid:145)Turkey still maintains its border with Armenia closed(cid:146)
(Chapter 27: Common foreign and security policy). The Turkish Government is currently re-examining
Turkey(cid:146)s policy towards Armenia.

The Council and the Commission will discuss regularly with Turkey and keep under review the issues
referred to in the Accession Partnership and in the Commission(cid:146)s Regular Report as part of Turkey(cid:146)s
preparation for EU accession.

(2001/C 174 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Delays in rescue operations after road accidents because of secrecy surrounding technical innova-

tions in cars

1.
Is the Commission aware that car manufacturers usually keep secret new ways in which they protect
their products from collision (e.g. stronger bodywork, airbags and seat belt tightening devices), with the
result that firemen and other emergency services often do not know how to remove trapped occupants
from wrecked vehicles without delay?

2.
Does the Commission agree that the secrecy referred to in question 1 is probably due to the fact that
manufacturers want to keep the technical innovations in their products concealed from competitors as far
as possible, but that this is pointless because no manufacturer can prevent his competitors from buying the
car and stripping it down?

Does the Commission agree that maintaining secrecy can lead to a loss of life and to an increase in

3.
permanent injury as a result of delays in medical treatment?

4. What does the Commission think it can do to help set up, as soon as possible, a central database so
that the fire services and other emergency services in all Member States are informed by car manufacturers
and importers as soon as possible, and in as much detail as possible, of how cars involved in accidents can
be opened without delay?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

The Commission agrees with the honourable Member that the speed of rescue operations is a vital factor
in minimising the consequences of injuries suffered in road accidents.

However, the Commission is not aware of any fact, real or alleged, that would indicate a desire or a policy
for secrecy in this area on the part of car manufacturers. As the honourable Member points out, it is
standard practice among manufacturers to dismantle the vehicles of competitors in order to discover the
latest developments.

With regard to the protection of secrets or innovations, manufacturers tend to adopt the following
approach: when a manufacturer wants to safeguard an innovation that improves the service to customers
(which applies to the safety devices mentioned by the honourable Member) and gain or maintain a
competitive edge, he patents it.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/251

As for the possibility of speedy rescue for the occupants of a vehicle after an accident, the following may
be assumed:

(cid:129) either the accident occurs with a degree of severity covered by the two directives on (cid:145)side impact(cid:146) and
(cid:145)front impact(cid:146) (cid:129) Directive 96/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1996
on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side impact and amending Directive
70/156/EEC (1), and Directive 96/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 Decem-
ber 1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a frontal impact and
amending Directive 70/156/EEC (2) (cid:129) and in this case the requirement is for the occupants to be
extricated without the aid of tools (by opening the doors, freeing the lower limbs from the pedals,
unbuckling the seat belt, while the airbag offers no obstacle to extrication, regardless of whether or
not it opens during the accident);

(cid:129) or the accident is very severe and the wrecked state of the vehicle requires the use of special tools
such as hydraulic cutters or electric saws to cut the bodywork, as well as cutters or knives to cut the
safety belts, if need be.

According to the information available to the Commission, there are no examples of technical innovation
that would prevent the use of such tools and procedures.

(1) OJ L 169, 8.7.1996.
(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2001/C 174 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 January 2001)

Subject: TV rights relating to football

With regard to the sale of TV rights, relating to football, can the Commission confirm that it intends to
commence an investigation into the lawfulness, under competition law, of the block sale of TV rights by
UEFA and other football authorities?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2001)

The Commission can confirm that it has a number of open cases which concern the joint selling of
television rights to football matches. The Commission has not yet reached any firm conclusions as to the
likely outcome of these cases but it will be guided, inter alia, by the practices of the Member States in this
regard and by the specific characteristics of sport.

(2001/C 174 E/270)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0075/01

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Linguistic reform in Navarre

In its reply to my Written Question E-1179/00 (1), the Commission states that, (cid:145)respect for cultural and
linguistic diversity is one of the foundation stones of the Union(cid:146). As I explained in that question, Navarre is
divided into language zones. By means of regional decree No 372/2000 of 11 December, the Government
of Navarre altered the conditions for use of the Basque language by the local authorities, and shortly
afterwards, on 9 January, it approved an action plan, stating, in essence, that this native language will not