WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/01 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Fines for road traffic offences in the European Union.
Date: 2001-03-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European citizenship, discrimination on the basis of nationality, fine, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/129

Is the Commission taking account of the impact of the use of encircling nets on protected species, such as
dolphins and terrapins, when, as in this Agreement, it provides financial incentives to use such nets?

Is the Commission taking due account of the fact that in the last two years, the tuna harvest has tended to
be in the Azores, to the detriment of fishermen and shipowners?

What measures does it intend to take in order to tackle this situation?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2001)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his question and would like to inform him that the
conservation of tunas and tuna-like species in the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas is the responsibility
of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) of which the Community
fisheries agreements. Community
is an active member.
representatives are steady supporters, within ICCAT, of strict measures to preserve tuna stocks in the area,
and Portugal is also represented, namely through the internal Community co-ordination procedures.

ICCAT obligations apply in the context of

The Community has been instrumental in the decision made by ICCAT that the use of Fishing Aggregating
Devices in the Gulf of Guinea be forbidden for a three month period every year. This measure, which was
already unilaterally applied by the Community ship owners in the past few years, should contribute to the
safeguard of the stocks in the entire area and especially for the protection of juveniles of certain species.

As regards fishing in the waters of the Azores and Madeira, the Commission recalls that these activities are
carried out within the quotas managed by Portugal in the ICCAT shares attributed to the Community.

Community vessels are submitted to a general ban or fishing over dolphins (1). As regards turtles, their by
catch is subject to constant surveillance by the Scientific Committee of ICCAT.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through

technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ L 125, 27.4.1998).

(2001/C 318 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0830/01

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 March 2001)

Subject: Fines for road traffic offences in the European Union

Is the Commission aware that Belgium imposes different fines on non-Belgians from those it imposes on
Belgian nationals for the same road traffic offences?

Is it aware that non-Belgians who receive a fine in Belgium must pay it on the spot, whereas Belgians do
not have to do so?

Is it aware that a verdict was delivered at
acknowledges such discrimination?

the Maaseik police court

(M20002686sassenanna)

that

Does it know whether similar discrimination occurs in other EU Member States?

Is such discrimination based on nationality compatible with European and international law?

If not, what steps is the Commission planning to take to put an end to it?

C 318 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2001)

Article 12 (formerly Article 6) of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality and
thus precludes any administrative or criminal penalties which national authorities may impose on nationals
of the Member States in a discriminatory, unjustified or non-proportional manner. In its judgment of
23 January 1997 in Case C-29/95 Pastoors v. Belgian State, the Court of Justice found that, in the absence
of a convention to ensure the enforcement of court decisions in criminal matters between Member States,
a Member State may require non-residents to lodge a deposit where, in the event of an offence, they opt
for continuation of normal criminal proceedings against them rather than for immediate payment of a fine.
However, the same judgment states that under the said Article 12 the deposit may not be higher than the
amount provided for in the event of immediate payment.

On the basis of the above case-law, a difference in the treatment of residents and non-residents is
objectively justified since there is a real risk that it may be impossible, or at the least considerably more
difficult and costly, to enforce the imposition of a fine on a non-resident.

The Commission intends to analyse the Belgian legislation in detail in the light of the above case-law
before taking a position on whether it is compatible with Community law. Following complaints, the
Commission has scrutinised the legislation of some Member States where the system of penalties for road
traffic offences involves different treatment of residents and non-residents. Infringement proceedings were
initiated against Italy in respect of Italian legislation in this area, and the matter was referred to the Court
of Justice in May 2000.

At present, there is no instrument in force at European level to ensure that criminal penalties imposed in
one Member State are enforced in the other Member States. As part of cooperation under Schengen, an
agreement was adopted on cooperation in proceedings for road traffic offences and the enforcement of
financial penalties imposed in respect thereof (1). However, this agreement did not enter into force and has
since been incorporated into the Union framework along with the rest of the Schengen (cid:145)acquis(cid:146) under the
relevant protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty. Work is in progress on turning the agreement into a legal
instrument on the basis of Article 34(2) of the Treaty on European Union. The purpose of such an
instrument would be to simplify mutual assistance in enforcing decisions taken in respect of road traffic
offences. In addition, an instrument is scheduled to be drawn up that will allow the Member State of
residence to collect fines conclusively imposed in another Member State. It is to be hoped that once these
instruments are in force they will constitute a complete system for enforcing fines abroad and will thus
free the Member States from having to take special measures to ensure that fines are paid by non-residents.

(1) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(2001/C 318 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0835/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Organised environmental crime in European countries

(22 March 2001)

(cid:129) Criminal organisations which harm the environment
in many European countries,

(the (cid:145)eco-mafia(cid:146)) have become excessively
powerful
including Italy. This (cid:145)eco-Mafia(cid:146) makes billions by illegally
disposing of highly toxic waste which then becomes an ecological time-bomb, destroying the health
not only of the current population but of future generations, who will be irredeemably condemned by
polluted water, soil and air.

(cid:129) Examples of such activities were recently shown on Italian public television channels. Moreover,
members of the city council and the decentralised local authority of Milan have recently submitted an
alarming complaint concerning the risk of leakage of dioxins contained in drums illegally buried deep
underground, close to the water-table,
in the area earmarked for the construction of Milan(cid:146)s new
purification plant.

(cid:129) This new plant has been approved by the EU, which has already called for the work to begin.

(cid:129) Given that construction of the purification plant has become urgent and that the (cid:145)eco-Mafia(cid:146) has

enormous capacities to thwart checks of any kind.