WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/01 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council. Integrated policy against crime.
Date: 2001-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fight against crime, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, organised crime

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/197

To this end, workers must, for example, (cid:145)make correct use of the personal protective equipment supplied
to them(cid:146).

In the (cid:145)new approach(cid:146) directives, which include Directive 89/686/EEC,
standards is voluntary.

the application of European

The directives based on Article 137 (ex Article 118A) of the EC Treaty contain minimum requirements
which must be transposed into national law in the Member States.

No. The only exclusions from the scope of Directive 89/656/EEC are those given in Article 2(2). These
include personal protective equipment for means of road transport.

(1) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.
(2) Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to personal protective equipment (OJ L 399, 30.12.1989) as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of
22 July 1993 (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993), Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993) and
Directive 96/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 September 1996 (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996).

(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2001/C 340 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Integrated policy against crime

I am referring to the Council(cid:146)s reply to my Written Question E-3889/00 (1). The Council establishes that
the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam raise potential problems, related to the division of responsibility
between the first and third pillar. Does the Council agree that this ambiguous situation should be clarified
at the political level, before serious problems arise between the services involved and before other damage
is done to the detriment of the image of the European Union and the interests of its citizens?

If so, what initiative does the Council propose?

Is my interpretation of the Council(cid:146)s answer to my first and second questions correct when I conclude that
the tasks of Eurojust encompass all types of crime, including judicial cooperation in matters concerning
criminal investigations regarding the financial interests of the EC, so called EC fraud? This would be the
constitutional consequence of the creation of the third pillar and it would avoid duplication of effort.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 174.

Reply

(20 July 2001)

In its reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s previous question on the same subject (1) the Council confirmed
that difficulties could arise from the Treaties(cid:146) division of responsibility between the European Union(cid:146)s first
and third pillars; it pointed out that this state of affairs was the result of the political decisions that had led
to the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. The Council seeks to ensure that the Treaties in their present
form are complied with.

With regard to the tasks of Eurojust, it may be noted that the initiative of the Portuguese Republic, the
French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption of
a Council Decision setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious organised crime
was submitted to the European Parliament for its opinion. Article 5(f) of the Decision includes among
Eurojust(cid:146)s responsibilities (cid:145)the protection of the European Communities(cid:146) financial interests, as defined in the
Convention of 26 July 1995 and in the Protocols thereto of 29 November 1996, 19 June 1997 and
27 September 1997(cid:146). Article 16, which deals with the relations between Eurojust and its partners, states

C 340 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

among other things that the Commission (European Anti-Fraud Office) may, on a case-by-case basis, be
involved in the processing of a case, either on the initiative of Eurojust or at its own request, where the
national members concerned do not oppose such participation (2).

(1) Written Question E-3889/00.
(2) OJ C 243, 24.8.2000, pp. 15 to 20.

(2001/C 340 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 April 2001)

Subject: New road bridge over the Havel river crosses an area protected under the Habitats Directive

The Brandenburg Land government is planning to build a new motorway feeder road from Rathenow to
the A2 motorway through an area listed under the Habitats Directive.

Has the Commission been informed about the violation of the area(cid:146)s protected status by the planning

1.
of this motorway feeder road?

If so, what procedural measures has it asked the Brandenburg Land government to take?

2.
Has the Commission gathered, from its contacts with the Brandenburg Land government, that a more
environmentally acceptable variant is not to be taken into account in the route planning procedure now
pending, presumably because it is politically undesirable?

If so, has the Commission urged that the modified zero option (extension of the existing B102 major road,
possibly including a Brandenburg by-pass) be included?

3.
Is the Commission aware that all the preliminary tests on the environmental acceptability of this
infringement of the area(cid:146)s natural resources have been condemned by local naturalists as unqualified and
defective, because important facts have simply been disregarded or under-valued?

Is the Commission aware that, if local experts had been involved, it would have been possible to

4.
avoid violating the protected area and constructing an artificial corridor for the new road?

What measures is the Commission taking in this connection to ensure that the avoidance principle is
applied?

5.

Are there any plans to employ EU funds to subsidise this road project?

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

(20 June 2001)

The Commission has received a complaint concerning the planned new road bridge and motorway feeder
road in Brandenburg/Germany. According to the complainant, the bridge and the road are being planned
In the view of the
adjacent to the nature conservation reserve (cid:145)Untere Havel S(cid:252)d(cid:146)
complainant, the affected area should be part of a proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI).
According to the complainant, a certain part of this area, which deserved inclusion in the pSCI was
excluded to enable the project to proceed.

in Brandenburg.

In order to assess the case properly, it is necessary to carry out an in-depth technical assessment of the
information submitted by the complainant. An answer to questions 1 to 4 can be provided after the
assessment will have been completed and final conclusions will have been drawn by the competent
services. Notwithstanding an apparently comprehensive nomination of pSCIs for the Land of Brandenburg,
the Commission will address an information request to the German Government if the assessment shows
that Community law is likely to have been infringed in the current case.