WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/01 by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission. European Union approval of clean beaches.
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, bathing water, eco-label, infringement of EU law, quality of the environment

C 261 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

made by 60 % of social services and about 70 % of the implementing bodies are a cause for concern, with
many still in the initial stock-taking phase. Is the Commission aware of these disturbing figures?

Does the Commission share our concern that progress in introducing the euro in the euro zone

2.
leaves much to be desired?

Can the Commission provide a breakdown per Member State of progress made, the problems (if any)

3.
and the bottlenecks in the individual Member States of the euro zone?

4.
Can the Commission indicate whether the individual Member States of the euro zone are experien-
cing similar, or very different, problems in the process, and what action the Commission is intending to
take?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2001)

The Commission has received information about
the progress made by Dutch local authorities in
preparing for the introduction of the euro. It would appear that while the present state of preparation at
local level is very patchy, a number of good practices have also been observed and some Dutch towns and
cities have played an active role in preparing a guide aimed at helping European local authorities to make
the transition to the euro.

Work has started on improving local preparations, especially in the case of social welfare organisations,
and it is particularly important to monitor progress, not only in the Netherlands but in all other
participating Member States.

A recent Eurobarometer survey shows that forward planning and preparations for the introduction of the
euro by small and medium-sized businesses are clearly inadequate. However, it has not yet been possible to
take account of the vigorous national publicity campaigns launched at the beginning of 2001 or of the
campaign by the European Central Bank which plans to introduce coordinated and specific information
campaigns in the second half of 2001.

Every month the Commission prepares a (cid:145)scoreboard(cid:146) on preparations for the introduction of the euro.
This document, produced on the basis of information gathered from the individual national civil services,
is presented to the Eurogroup Finance Ministers and published, in summary, on the Internet.

Generally speaking, preparations for the introduction of the euro present the same kind of problems in all
Member States, although the scale of these problems may vary considerably (cid:129) which is why solving them
should be a matter for subsidiarity. However, the Commission has not been idle.
It has long been
supporting Member States(cid:146) efforts by encouraging the exchange of information and good practice between
the national officials responsible for the euro, co-financing national information campaigns and providing
direct finance for specific Europe-wide actions organised by the civil society. This financial assistance is
provided under the Prince programme, in which Parliament is involved at the level of preparation and
monitoring.

(2001/C 261 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/01

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: European Union approval of clean beaches

It was recently reported in the British press that the Europe Commission was considering fining the UK
Government, or Blackpool Council, around £65 000 per day for apparently being in breach of the
European Commission(cid:146)s (cid:145)Blue Flag(cid:146) safe beaches criteria.

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/55

In relation to the above reports:

1.

Is the European Commission proposing to fine the UK Government or Blackpool Council or anyone
else, around £65 000 per day for being in breach of the European Union guidelines on safe beaches?

2.

If so, which committee of the European Commission made this decision?

3. What right of appeal is there for the United Kingdom Government and/or Blackpool Council?

4. How many other British beaches, apart from Blackpool beach, are said by the European Commission

not to meet their standards?

5. How many different beaches have been assessed by the European Commission in the entire United

Kingdom?

6. How many beaches have been assessed in all other European Union countries? (Please state how many

beaches have been assessed for each EU country)

7. On what previous occasions has the European Commission fined or proposed to fine other EU

countries for breaches of its beach safety criteria?

8. What are the criteria that a beach must meet in order to qualify for a (cid:145)Blue Flag(cid:146) safety award?

9. How much money has been spent by the European Commission,

in each year since 1995,

in

monitoring the health and safety of beaches throughout the European Union?

10. Can the Commission list any reports which have been published by it on the monitoring of the health

and safety of beaches throughout the European Union?

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

(18 April 2001)

Recent press reports concerning the Commission(cid:146)s decision to refer the United Kingdom to the Court
1.
of Justice together with a request that the Member State be fined, relate to a decision of the Commission
taken in December 2000. This decision was taken to follow up the judgement of the Court of Justice
against the United Kingdom in 1993 (Case C-1990/56) for its failure to ensure that nine bathing waters
around the Fylde Coast in North West England complied with the mandatory requirements of the Bathing
Water Directive, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing
water (1). This second round of enforcement action was commenced when the majority of bathing waters
in question were still found to fail in the 1996 and 1997 bathing seasons. Two out of the nine bathing
waters concerned failed to comply in the 2000 bathing season according to the initial results provided to
the Commission by the British authorities.

2.
The original court action which resulted in the 1993 judgement was taken under Article 226 (ex
Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The decision now to refer the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice for a
second time has been taken under Article 228 (ex Article 171) of the EC Treaty. This Article gives the
Commission the power to act against any Member State that fails to comply with a judgement of the
Court of Justice. It also allows the Commission to ask the Court to impose a financial penalty on that
Member State. In this case, the Commission has decided to propose to the Court of Justice that the United
Kingdom be fined € 106 800 per day.

3.
The action in question is taken against the Member State and not against regional authorities such as
the Blackpool Council. The United Kingdom will now be in a position to defend itself according to the
formal procedures of the Court. There is no right of appeal following a judgement of the Court of Justice.

4.
A number of other bathing waters in the United Kingdom, apart from those implicated in the
judgement in Case C-1990/56, have also been found not to be in compliance with the mandatory
requirements of the Bathing Water Directive. As a result, the Commission decided in July 2000 to refer
the United Kingdom to the Court of Justice under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The compliance of bathing
waters varies from year to year, but the results for each bathing season are published annually by the

C 261 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

Commission in an annual bathing water report. The latest report was published in May 2000 and related
to the results of the 1999 bathing season. The report is also available on the Internet. The section of the
report relating to bathing waters in the United Kingdom can be found at: www.europa.eu.int/water/water-
bathing/report/uk.html.

5.
The latest figures available are for the 1999 bathing season. These show that the United Kingdom has
identified and assessed 541 bathing areas in coastal zones and 11 bathing areas in freshwater zones in
England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, plus six in Gibraltar. The national authorities of each
Member State and not the Commission carry out the assessment of bathing water quality.

6.
The overview table from the Commission Bathing Water Report published in May 2000 shows that
for the 1999 bathing season there were a total of 11,435 coastal zones and 4,376 freshwater zones
identified as bathing areas and assessed by the national authorities under the Bathing Water Directive.

7.
This is the first time that the Commission has proposed to fine a Member State for failure to comply
with an earlier judgement of the Court of Justice in the case of a failure to comply with bathing water
standards.

8.
The Blue Flag Campaign is a project initiated by the Foundation for Environmental Education in
Europe (FEEE), based in Copenhagen (Denmark). One of a range of criteria used by this campaign is water
quality, based on the guideline values of the Bathing Water Directive. The guideline values are stricter than
the mandatory values (or imperative values) set by the Directive. There is no connection between the
assessment by FEEE and the Commission, and the issue of beaches complying with the Blue Flag is the sole
responsibility of the FEEE. Any questions on the Blue Flag Campaign should therefore be addressed to the
FEEE, Scandiagade 13, DK-2450 Kłbenhavn (Denmark).

The monitoring of

the health and safety of beaches in order to check compliance with the
9.
requirements of the Bathing Water Directive is the responsibility of each Member State. The costs of
monitoring are also met by the Member States. These results are then submitted annually to the
Commission and form the basis of the annual bathing water reports.

The annual bathing water reports are published by the Commission each year and are now available

10.
on the Internet at: www.europa.eu.int/water/water-bathing/report.html.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2001/C 261 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0184/01

by Florence Kuntz (UEN) to the Council

(5 February 2001)

Subject: Consequences of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium

The national federation representing French servicemen and women, concerned for their well-being and
that of their European comrades in arms, has called for a clinical case definition of the (cid:145)Gulf War(cid:146) and
(cid:145)Balkans(cid:146) syndromes.

In view of the various statements made by the medical authorities in the various countries of the European
Union, would the Council state its views and its position as soon as possible on the possible or known
effects on public health of the use of munitions containing depleted uranium, i.e. the (cid:145)Balkans syndrome(cid:146)
affecting some French servicemen and members of the armed forces of other European Union countries
who have served in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?

Could the Council state, as speedily as possible, the exact number of European servicemen and Yugoslav
civilians affected by the use of such munitions, and the areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
concerned?