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, United States, apparatus based on the use of rays, harmonisation of standards, import, labelling

C 40 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

competence. Moreover, it would be misleading to consider the top marginal income tax rate in isolation
from other aspects of the tax law. In particular the progressiveness of the income tax schedule, the laying
out of exemptions (e.g. for some social security benefits), tax deductions such as family allowances and
special schemes for capital income or real estate may affect significantly the level of tax revenue.

For information purposes, the top rates of personal income tax expressed as per cent of taxable income
and their respective thresholds of income, have been calculated and a copy is sent direct to the Honourable
member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. Because of the complexities mentioned above, there are various
in some
ways of computing such rates. An important parameter to consider relates to the fact that,
Member States, regional and/or municipal income taxes are levied in addition to state income tax. For
these Member States, the average rate of the regional and/or municipal income taxes has been added to the
top marginal state income tax in order to get the total top marginal income tax rate. For Spain however,
the average rate of regional income tax has been replaced in the calculation with the top regional tax rate
provided for by default by national legislation. The span of the regional and/or municipal tax rates are
indicated in the last column of the table sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat, as
per cent of taxable income, except for Belgium where it consists of a surcharge as per cent of the state tax.
Overall, these figures show large differentiations of top marginal tax rates applied by Member States.

(2002/C 40 E/015)

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
which give a suitable range and power for their intended purpose.
Importing into the EU pointers
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?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has examined in detail the issue of the safety of laser pointers with the assistance of the
Emergencies Committee under Directive 92/59/EEC on general product safety (1). It was agreed with the
competent market surveillance authorities of the Member States that the placing on the market of laser
pens intended for or likely to be used by non-professionals, belonging to class 3 and higher in accordance
with European standard EN 60825, will not be allowed.

A comparative examination of the American standard shows that
the European and the American
classification structures do not present fundamental divergences in respect to laser pointers of classes 1 and
2. These categories are safe under reasonably foreseeable conditions,
in particular concerning the
functioning of the (cid:145)blink reflex(cid:146). Member States have not reported specific problems on this issue.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/17

Problems with labelling may appear if laser pointers are misclassified, due to an incorrect application of
the standards. However, the Member States are aware of these problems and, according to their reports,
take the appropriate measures when needed.

Recently, the International electrotechnical commission (IEC) has approved an amendment to standard IEC
60825 that introduces a new classification structure. Cenelec, the European electrotechnical standardisation
body, has decided to incorporate this amendment into the relevant European standard. The American
authorities have stated their intention to harmonise, to the extent possible, the requirements applicable in
the United States to laser pens with those of the new international standard. Therefore, the Commission
expects further progress in the near future towards further international harmonisation in this area.

(1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992.

(2002/C 40 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0892/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Subsidies for the Sensus police project

Commissioner Erkki Liikanen(cid:146)s reply to question P-0009/01 (1) was that on 25 May 1999 a new
Commission decision (E/696/99) was adopted which amended the original decision in such a way as to
allow Europol to take part in the Sensus project. The original decision established rules for the fourth
framework programme of the European Economic Community for Community actions in the field of
research, technological development and demonstration (1994-1998).

Was the original decision amended at the request of:

(cid:129) EU Member States,

(cid:129) law enforcement and security services such as the German federal security service (Bundesnachrich-

tendienst) and the front organisation, the Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen, and/or

(cid:129) Europol?

If so, what Member States or law enforcement and security services were involved?

If not, at whose request was the original decision amended by the Commission on 25 May 1999?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission would have to point out that the original decision (Commission Evaluation Decision
E/1791/97), which was amended by the new Commission decision (E/696/99) concerned the evaluation of
projects for future funding and did not establish the rules for the fourth framework programme as the
Honourable member indicates in his question.

Europol(cid:146)s anticipated involvement in Sensus is referred to in the initial project work programme. However,
their participation as a contractor was delayed by the fact that Europol(cid:146)s charter had not been ratified by
all Member States at that time, and therefore there was no legal entity that could sign a contract.