WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/01 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Information brochure accompanying protective gloves.
Date: 2001-05-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer information, marketing, protective equipment, technical regulations

C 318 E/242

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

the provisions on the free movement of goods and services and the freedom of establishment, and with the
principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.

Moreover the sale of an asset owned by the State, where performed in the absence of a public tender or of
the evaluation of an independent expert ascertaining a sale at market value, might involve State aid,
depending on the characteristics of the sector and on the specificity of the case.

In the case at issue, the Commission asked the Italian authorities for information on the criteria governing
the sale. In the reply, the authorities referred to the (cid:145)Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri(cid:146) of
9 March 2000, concerning the transfer of the ownership of Acquedotto Pugliese (EEAP) by way of direct
sale to the national Italian electricity agency (Enel SpA) at a price to be established by a committee of
independent valuators.

The Commission is currently waiting for new details so that it can check whether the provisions and
principles of the EC Treaty have been complied with, in the case of the sale of Acquedotto Pugliese to
which the honourable Member refers.

(2001/C 318 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1435/01

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Information brochure accompanying protective gloves

(17 May 2001)

The information brochure which must, under EC Directive 89/686/EEC (1), be enclosed with every pair of
protective gloves is extraordinarily long and complicated in its content.

Are these laborious, long-winded instructions really necessary?

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

Protective gloves are indeed personal protective equipment (PPE) within the meaning of Directive 89/686/
EEC (1). This Directive aims to guarantee the free movement of PPE which (cid:145)preserves the health and ensures
the safety of users(cid:146). The term (cid:145)users(cid:146) is used here in its widest sense, covering anyone who uses PPE,
whether for work or for leisure activities (do-it-yourself or sport). The protection offered by PPE, and in
this case protective gloves, can cover a wide variety of risks (electrical, mechanical, chemical, or the risk of
ionising radiation etc.).

To ensure suitable protection for the user(cid:146)s hands, gloves must be accompanied by an appropriate
description. In practical terms, the information supplied by the manufacturer must enable users correctly
to select, use and maintain the protective gloves in the context of their intended use and according to the
type of risk to be prevented. It is therefore justifiable to require that the notes supplied by the PPE
manufacturer convey the relevant information using precise terminology and technical instructions.

That is why point 1.4 of Annex II to Directive 89/686/EEC stipulates that the notes that must be drawn up
by the manufacturer and supplied when personal protective equipment is placed on the market (cid:145)must
contain all relevant information(cid:146) on:

(cid:129) storage, use, cleaning, maintenance, servicing and disinfection;

(cid:129) performance as recorded during tests to check the levels of protection;

(cid:129) the classes of protection appropriate to different levels of risk and the corresponding limits of use;

(cid:129) suitable accessories;

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/243

(cid:129) the obsolescence deadline;

(cid:129) the type of packaging suitable for transport;

(cid:129) the significance of any markings.

(1) Council Directive of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
personal protective equipment (89/686/EEC) as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993 (OJ L 220,
30.8.1993, p. 1), Council Directive 93/95/CEE of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993, p. 11) and Directive
96/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 September 1996 (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996, p. 44).

(2001/C 318 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1449/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Lawyers(cid:146) freedom to provide services (cid:129) payment for travelling time

According to paragraph 336c of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, a lawyer can be appointed to
represent a person, in both civil and criminal cases, the lawyer(cid:146)s fees for the case in question being met by
the State. The fees cover client meetings, possible inspections as well as the hearing itself, but not travel
expenses or the cost of travelling time, i.e. payment for the time the lawyer spends on travelling. The
lawyer can claim direct expenses for transport, such as plane and train tickets, from the client, but not
payment for time spent travelling. A convicted client in a criminal case refunds the State(cid:146)s expenses. In
some cases, the court also allows the lawyer(cid:146)s direct expenses to be paid by the State.

Can it be regarded as inconsistent with Council Directive 77/249/EEC (1) of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the
effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services as well as with the principles of freedom of
movement, that lawyers appointed to represent a client, whose fees for work associated with the case itself
are provisionally met by the State, cannot receive payment for travelling time from the client, when the
lawyer does not live in the area covered by the jurisdiction of the court or comes from another EU
country?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1977, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2001)

The payment of fees to court-appointed lawyers does not fall within the scope of Council Directive 77/
249/EEC of 22 March 1977, aimed at facilitating the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide
services. The rule which prevents court-appointed lawyers from charging fees from their clients for time
spent travelling cannot therefore be in breach of this Directive.

The principle of freedom of movement covers both the provision of services and establishment. As regards
the provision of services, and assuming that a lawyer established in another Member State has been
appointed by the court, which does not seem to be common practice, the rule in question does not appear
to discriminate against this lawyer, even indirectly, insofar as the time spent travelling varies according to
the proximity of the client or the jurisdiction and the available means of transport. For example, the time
involved would be less for a lawyer established not far from the border than it would for a lawyer residing
in the jurisdiction of a Member State with a large area.

As regards establishment, the time spent travelling is the same for a lawyer established in the host Member
State as it is for a lawyer from this Member State.