WRITTEN QUESTION P-0197/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Non-application of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/220.
Date: 2001-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, application of EU law, genetically modified organism, import (EU), import policy, infringement procedure (EU), marketing, port administration, precautionary principle, testing

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/153

(2001/C 235 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0195/01

by Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Danish Government sale of bus company Combus A/S

(29 January 2001)

Is it the Commission(cid:146)s view that the Danish Government(cid:146)s sale of the bus company, Combus A/S, (officially
announced on 15 January 2001) to the British-owned company Arriva was carried out in accordance with
EU competition rules? Is it also the Commission(cid:146)s view that the Danish Government(cid:146)s undertaking, given as
part of the related agreement, to provide a special grant of DKK 140 million for the purchaser (cid:129) in
addition to the DKK 300 million granted Combus A/S as aid in 1999 without EU notification (cid:129) is
consistent with the provisions of the Treaty on state aid?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2001)

The Commission has been informed by the Danish Government that it has decided to sell Combus A/S to
Arriva Danmark A/S and that a sales agreement, which includes injection of capital from the Danish State
into Combus A/S, was signed on 15 January 2001. The Commission is currently examining both the
capital injection in 1999 and the intended capital injection with respect to the compatibility with the
EC Treaty. This investigation includes the terms of the sales agreement. The Commission cannot prejudge
the outcome of this investigation, but it will make every effort to finalise the case as quickly as possible.

(2001/C 235 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0197/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Non-application of Article 4(3) of Directive 90/220

(29 January 2001)

1.
Is the Commission aware that at the EU(cid:146)s external ports such as Corunna, Tarragona, Rotterdam and
Hamburg there are practically no systematic, watertight inspections of genetically modified products but, at
the most, spot checks?

Has the Commission any information on the precise scale of the limited number of spot checks (as

2.
a percentage)?

How does the Commission ensure that the Member States allow onto the market only those GM

3.
products in the Community that are expressly approved?

4.
Since the U.S. approves GM products that are not approved in the EU, should not imports from non-
Member States and in particular the U.S. (especially maize and soya) be systematically checked for the
presence of GM material?

5.
How do the Commission and the Member States obtain their information, given that there is no seed
register in the U.S.? Are we to understand that neither the Commission nor the Member States are fully
informed as to which GM varieties originating in the U.S. or other non-Member States are on the market
and could be imported into the EU?

6.
Do (a) the Commission, (b) the Member States(cid:146) authorities actually have tests for all GMOs grown in
the U.S.? If so, could you please list those tests. If not, how can inspections be carried out without any
tests?

C 235 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

7. Why does the Commission not proceed against Member States that only operate spot checks and
thus fail to ensure compliance with Directive 90/220?

Has the Commission emphasised to the Member States and the general public that Article 4(3) of

8.
Directive 90/220 (1) lays down systematic inspections?

9. Why has the Commission not followed up the complaints of Greenpeace and notwithstanding
references to illegal marketing (see my question to the Commission on the illegal marketing of seed in
Baden-Wurttemberg, E-1571/99) (2) taken no action?

(1) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.
(2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 36.

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

(26 March 2001)

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990, on the deliberate release into the environment
1. to 3.
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), sets out in Article 4 the responsibility of Member States to
ensure that adverse effects on human health and the environment from the release of GMOs are avoided.
In order to achieve this aim, Article 4(3) requires Member States to ensure that their authorities organise
appropriate inspection and control measures in relation to GMOs. In the revised Directive 90/220/EEC,
this obligation is maintained in Article 4(5).

The Commission has investigated a number of complaints about shipments arriving in the Community
ports of Coruna, Tarragona, Rotterdam and Hamburg. As was pointed out in the context of these
complaints, Article 4(3) does not require Member States to check every incoming vessel. The Directive
does not specify the frequency of the inspections that are required, but leaves this to the discretion of the
Member States to organise in such a way that the safeguards in the Directive are maintained i.e. that
adverse effects on human health and the environment are avoided.

4.
An ad hoc technical Working Group on inspections and control measures concerning genetically
modified organisms had been established in order to discuss the availability and applicability of specific
technical methods for the detection of potentially unauthorised deliberate releases of genetically modified
organisms for placing on the market. Further measures on the whole issue are currently being discussed
under the specific vertical legislation.

5.
In order for GMOs (as such or in mixtures with other products) to be imported into the Community,
the relevant Community legislation has to be respected so that the public is assured of the safety of these
products for human health and the environment. According to Directive 90/220/EEC, GMOs can only be
placed on the market after having received authorisation under the Directive. This also concerns products
containing or derived from GMOs that are imported into the Community.

Information on the current state of play with regard to authorizations for the placing on the market of
GMOs in the United States can be obtained through the internet on the websites of the corresponding
agencies in charge. As these specific sites are freely accessible Member States and the Commission are
using these sources to update their information on the situation in the United States. The Commission is
also in regular contact with the american authorities on a range of issues relating to GMOs, including the
status of authorisations for the placing on the market of GM varieties.

The specific characterization of a GMO is a multi-step procedure, which after the general classifica-
6.
tion as GMO includes subsequent tests to clearly identify a specific GMO. A whole set of qualitative tests
to detect GMOs has been developed in different laboratories all over the Community. These tests have
been validated under the co-ordination of the Commission(cid:146)s Joint Research Centre. These validated tests
allow the general identification of a GMO and the work on the further development of these tests is
continued and regularly updated.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/155

The Commission would only proceed against Member States under Article 226 (ex Article
7. and 8.
169) of the EC Treaty on the basis that there is evidence of a breach of the obligations of the Directive. As
with all legal proceedings, the Commission bears the burden of proof. The fact that Member States are not
systematically checking every incoming vessel from the United States and Canada is not a breach of Article
4(3) of the Directive.

9.
The Commission did follow up the complaints from Greenpeace with the German, Spanish and
Dutch Governments. With regard to imports into La Coruna, Tarragona and Rotterdam, the Commission
found that there was no evidence on the basis of which to start infringement action against the Spanish
and Dutch authorities. With regard to the imports into Rotterdam where Greenpeace presented evidence of
alleged irregularities with regard to a specific cargo, the Dutch authorities carried out their own inspection
of the cargo concerned but found no unauthorised viable GMOs to be present. The Dutch authorities
informed the Commission that it is their policy to inspect and test cargoes where complaints are received
or irregularities may be suspected. The situation with regard to imports into Hamburg is still being
investigated.

With regard to the situation in Baden-W(cid:252)rttemberg, the Commission received preliminary information
from the German authorities that this involved mainly approved varieties at a low level below 1 %.
However, the case is still being assessed.

(2001/C 235 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0203/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: Access to confidential information pursuant to Article 197(3) of the Treaty

In his decision of 15 January 2001 in case T-236/00 the President of the Court of First instance of the
European Communities expressly stated in paragraph 49 that Members of the European Parliament have
the right, as individuals, to table questions to the Commission and to receive from it answers which may
involve the forwarding of confidential information.

However, in recent months the Commission has repeatedly refused, on the grounds of confidentiality of
information, to answer questions or to forward documents.

1.
Is the Commission now prepared to forward copies of the documents I requested in my letter of
13 April 2000/No 202497 to Mrs Schreyer (Echo affair. UCLAF reports of 19 December 1997 and 18 May
1998, Lowe report; Pappas/Timmermans report; Med affair: minutes of proceedings and questions on the
report of 12 January 1998)?

Is the Commission prepared to provide straightforward answers to the individual points in my
2.
Written Questions E-3240/00, E-3241/00 and P-3478/00 in connection with fraud involving adulterated
butter, without using the pretext of confidentiality, as it did in the answers provided in December 2000?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

In the order he made on 15 January 2001 in Case T-236/00 R Gabriele Stauner and Others v. European
Parliament and Commission, the President of the Court of First Instance ruled at paragraph 49:

The fact that the Framework Agreement lays down that certain information may be forwarded only to
the parliamentary authorities referred to in point 1.4 of Annex III to the Agreement, that is, the
President of the European Parliament, the chairpersons of the parliamentary committees concerned,
the Bureau and the Conference of Presidents, does not deprive Members of Parliament, acting in an
individual capacity, of their right to put questions to the Commission and to obtain answers that may
in certain cases involve the forwarding of confidential
information, as was the case before the
Agreement was concluded. It should be borne in mind that the Agreement does not affect, even