WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/01 by Manuel Pérez Álvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Traffic accidents involving children.
Date: 2001-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: child, child protection, road safety, transport accident

C 364 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The CE marking is a mandatory conformity marking which must be affixed on products covered by New
Approach and Global Approach Directives before they are placed on the market and/or put into service.
The CE marking signifies that products conforms with the provisions of all
relevant Directives.
Furthermore the CE marking is the only marking which can be affixed on a product in order to signify
compliance with all relevant Community Directives.

The affixing of additional marks is allowed to the extent that such marks do not create confusion referring
to the meaning or the form of the CE marking, and that they do not reduce the legibility and visibility of
the CE marking.

This is explained in more depth in the (cid:145)Guide to the implementation of directives based on the New
Approach and Global Approach(cid:146) (1). In this Guide, in section 7.4 (cid:145)CE marking and other marks(cid:146) it is stated
that (cid:145)In view of the objectives of technical harmonisation, markings and marks additional to the CE
marking need to fulfil a different function from that of the CE marking. Thus they should provide an
added value in signifying conformity with objectives that are different from those to which the CE marking
relates(cid:146).

The guide was prepared by the services of
understanding and the (cid:145)new approach directives(cid:146).

the Commission in order

to increase,

facilitate the

The Guide has in addition not introduced a blanket ban on third-party markings. Concerning the status of
the Guide, it cannot replace a legal text or change what the legislator has decided, but it can draw out the
meaning, significance and practical consequences of the directives to which it refers.

(1) Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, reference C-22-99-014-EN-C.

(2001/C 364 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0448/01

by Manuel PØrez `lvarez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: Traffic accidents involving children

What measures, both indicative and binding, does the Commission intend to take in response to the
alarming report by the United Nations Children(cid:146)s Fund that 8 000 children in the industrialised world are
killed and many more injured in traffic accidents every year?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

Each year around 1 000 children under the age of ten are killed in road accidents. Whether they are
passengers in vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists, children can never be blamed for road accidents. They are
thus a group requiring special protection.

term,

the Institutions are examining two measures designed to give children greater
In the short
protection. These are a proposal to make it compulsory to use child restraints in vehicles (1) and work to
provide greater protection for vulnerable road users in the event of collision with a car (2).

The Commission is also envisaging new measures in the Road Safety Action Programme for 2002 to 2010
it will be sending to the Council and Parliament this year.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/9

It may be assumed, lastly, that all road safety measures, whether general or specific, serve to provide
children with greater protection.

(1) OJ C 96, 27.3.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 389 final.

(2001/C 364 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0474/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freshwater fishing in Ireland: ongoing disturbance of the natural balance in the Western Lakes

Region

Can the Commission confirm that, in the Western Lakes System in Ireland (cid:129) which consists of
1.
Lough Corrib in County Galway and Lough Mask and Lough Carra in County Mayo and the associated
rivers in the western region, together with Lough Arrow in County Sligo in north-west Ireland (cid:129) the
number of trout and salmon has declined sharply over the past 20 years or so?

Can the Commission also confirm that that decline in numbers is a consequence of the canalisation
2.
of natural watercourses and of the reclamation and draining of areas in the direct vicinity of the lakes and
the associated river systems, with the result that there is now less space for fish swimming up rapidly
flowing streams?

3.
To what extent is the continuing decline in trout numbers also a consequence of pollution by
phosphates of agricultural and domestic origin, of overgrazing by sheep on neighbouring hills, of
acidification as a result of the planting of conifers on slopes which drain into the lakes region, of erosion
and as a result of encroachment on spawning grounds in rivers and of the fact that many game anglers,
contrary to international custom, do not throw back the fish they catch but kill and eat them?

4.
In the period since European subsidies began to be granted in 1996, what has been done to improve
water quality and restore spawning grounds with a view to protecting trout stocks in the lakes referred to
in point 1?

5.
Is the Commission aware that European subsidies have been used for the deployment of gillnets, the
main objective of which is to catch pike between February and the end of April in the shallow spawning
grounds where they gather to breed?

6.
Can the Commission confirm that trout, perch, whitefish, otters, diving waterfowl and other animals
living in, on and near to the lakes also get caught up in these gillnets and that some of them die a painful
death after vainly struggling for hours to free themselves?

Is such use of gillnets, which upset the balance of nature, compatible with the status of specially

7.
protected area under the Wild Birds Directive?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

1.
According to the information received from the WRFB, the stock surveys of Loughs Corrib, Mask
and Carra in 1996 indicated to different degrees that the wild brown trout stock was not optimal and that
pike (an introduced species) stocks particularly in Lough Corrib were very significant. The scientific advice
was that several measures were needed to ensure that stocks improve. These were as follows: to repair
feeder and nursery streams and their habitat; to control and eliminate pollution sources; to reduce the
stock of predatory non-indigenous species. Salmon stocks are subjected to different pressures in the marine
environment.

As indicated by the NWRFB, insofar as Lough Arrow is concerned, a fish stock survey carried out in 1994
revealed a 50 % reduction in stocks of wild trout compared with similar surveys in 1979-1980.