WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission. Laser pointer pens.
Date: 2001-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, apparatus based on the use of rays, labelling, product safety, technical standard

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/115

To simplify the task of exporters, the Commission laid down special measures for the export to Russia of
goods eligible for refunds in a Decision of 28 July 1999, renewed by a Decision of 21 June 2000.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.
(2) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001.
(3) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2001/C 340 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Laser pointer pens

I understand that, in the United States, lasers are classified in a slightly different way from in the EU. The
American national standard for lasers has six classes, and the method of allocation is different from the
European standard. This has caused some problems with labelling. In some cases, American class 2 lasers
would be classified as class IIIA using the European standard. Laser pointers usually contain class II lasers
Importing into the EU pointers
which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose.
classified and labelled in accordance with the American standard means that they may be classified
incorrectly and consequently mislabelled. What measures have been taken, or are to be taken, to ensure
that pens imported into the EU are labelled in accordance with the EU standard?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The Commission is currently carrying out a technical examination of the problem mentioned by the
Honourable Member and will communicate to her the results of its research within the next few weeks.
The Commission will also raise this specific issue in the Emergency Committee (under the General Product
Safety Directive, Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 (1)) on 22 June 2001, in order to have
Member States experiences.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2001/C 340 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0882/01

by Carlos Carnero GonzÆlez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Complaint regarding the construction of an industrial estate in a special bird protection area in

San Fernando de Henares (Spain)

The El Molino cultural association has issued a complaint regarding the go-ahead given by San Fernando
de Henares town council (Community of Madrid, Spain) for a project to build an industrial estate on a site
set aside as ZEPA (special bird protection area) 142. The partial encroachment into and alterations to the
area would be in breach of the European legislation in force, not least Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

According to the local media, the complaint was lodged with the Commission on 2 September 2000, and
in a written reply dated 16 January 2001 the Commission reportedly stated that the complaint was
admissible and that a procedure was being launched to ascertain and investigate the facts referred to in the
complaint (Cr(cid:243)nica de Madrid, 12 February 2001).