WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Differences in interpretation in the various Member States with regard to the participation or exclusion of independent auditors and environmental auditors in the implementation of the EMAS scheme..
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Netherlands, competence of the Member States, environmental law, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, occupational status, restriction on competition, service industry

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/189

against sporting federations, for example under competition rules. On the other hand, in a number of
areas, any disputes on the application of Community law are a matter for the national courts.

(1) Nice European Council (cid:129) 7, 8 and 9 December 2000 (cid:129) Annex IV to the Presidency Conclusions: (cid:145)Declaration on
the specific characteristics of sport and its social function in Europe, of which account should be taken in
implementing common policies(cid:146).

(2) Report of the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and
maintaining the social functions of sport within the Community framework (cid:129) the Helsinki Report on Sport (cid:129)
COM(1999) 644 final.
(3) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.

(2001/C 364 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1718/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Differences in interpretation in the various Member States with regard to the participation or
exclusion of independent auditors and environmental auditors in the implementation of the EMAS
scheme.

1.
Does the Commission remember that in relation to the regulation on the voluntary participation of
organisations in the Community environmental management and audit scheme (EMAS) the European
Parliament adopted an amendment in the first two readings to the effect that large verification bodies
would lose their monopoly position as EMAS verifiers so that independent auditors and environmental
auditors would also be able to carry out this task, but that this provision was not included in the final text
adopted at third reading on 14 February 2001 as a result of the conciliation procedure?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that current practice differs greatly from Member State to Member
State, so that in Germany independent auditors are permitted to carry out these tasks whereas large bodies
in the Netherlands and Denmark are attempting to prevent this?

Is the Commission aware that obstacles are being created in the Netherlands by the Accreditation
3.
Council
(Raad voor de Accreditatie) and, following suit, by the Foundation for the Coordination of
Certification of Environmental Management Systems (Stichting Co(cid:246)rdinatie Certificatie Milieuzorgsystemen
(cid:129) SCCM) which are in a position to exclude the approximately 80 environmental auditors from the
impregnable bulwark constituted by the certifying bodies?

4.
Is the Commission aware of the Dutch draft bill No 27683 which aims to amend Article 12 of the
Environmental Management Act in connection with the revision of the EMAS regulation but which does
not take into account the freedom to provide services presumed in the EMAS regulation? Does the
Commission consider this draft bill to be compatible with the spirit of the regulation?

is the Commission(cid:146)s interpretation of

the manner in which independent auditors and
5. What
environmental auditors may be allowed to carry out or be excluded from such activities in future?
Which interpretation should in future be considered correct,
the Dutch/Danish
interpretation? Or does the Commission consider it acceptable that in practice different arrangements
continue to apply in the various Member States with the consequences that this entails as regards the legal
situation of this profession?

the German or

Does the Commission intend to allow the differences in interpretation in the various Member States

6.
to continue in the long term? If not, how and when does it intend to solve this problem?

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

(26 July 2001)

It never was the case that the EMAS Regulation, either in its original version (1) or in its
1. and 2.
amended version (2), restricted access to the profession of EMAS environmental verifier to organisations
alone. On the contrary, the EMAS Regulation states that national accreditation bodies may accredit
individuals, organisations or both, as environmental verifiers (3).

C 364 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

This option is open to the Member States under the subsidiarity principle, allowing them in particular to
take into account the environmental certification structure which existed previously. Whichever option the
Member State chooses in adopting a national accreditation system, the accredited environmental verifiers
must be independent of the activities they are verifying.

Under Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 (2),
Member States have 12 months from the date of entry into force of the Regulation to have fully
operational accreditation systems in place. It is therefore difficult to judge in advance whether they will
choose organisations or individuals as EMAS verifiers.

Accordingly, the Commission cannot for the moment uphold the view that certain verification bodies are
preventing individuals from participating in the EMAS accreditation scheme.

3.
The concept of (cid:145)environmental verifier(cid:146) relates only to the EMAS Regulation, so that the reference
made in the question to 80 verifiers who may be excluded from verification is not very clear. Either these
are 80 environmental verifiers accredited in accordance with the EMAS Regulation or they are individuals
with other responsibilities for whom the conditions for pursuing their profession are not laid down in the
EMAS Regulation. It should be mentioned here that the Community register of accredited environmental
verifiers contains only six verifiers for the Netherlands.

The Commission has not yet officially received the Dutch bill referred to, and cannot therefore

4.
comment on its compatibility with Regulation (EC) No 761/2001.

5. and 6.
As already stated in 1 and 2 above, Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 leaves it to the Member
States to choose what type of environmental verifiers they are going to accredit (individuals, organisations
or both), so exercising this option cannot be understood as a difference in interpretation of the Regulation.
At any rate,
in accordance with the principle of freedom to provide services environmental verifiers
accredited in one Member State, whether organisations or individuals, may carry out their duties in any
other Member State, as, incidentally, Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 reiterates.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the

industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (OJ L 168, 10.7.1993).

(2) OJ L 114, 24.4.2001.
(3) Cf Annex III A to Regulation (EEC) No 1836/93 and Annex V 5.1 to Regulation (EEC) No 761/2001.

(2001/C 364 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1720/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2001)

Subject: European grant to the Biomedical Primate Research Centre (B.P.R.C.) in Rijswijk

Can the Commission confirm that around € 3 million is given annually for research projects of the B.P.R.C.
in Rijswijk?

Is the Commission aware that this centre is heavily criticised on the grounds that:

(cid:129) experiments on primates which have been banned for ethical reasons in a number of countries are

continuing to be carried out there, even, to a limited extent, on chimpanzees;

(cid:129) the purpose of the experiments is regularly called into question, and the B.P.R.C. receives scarcely any

support from the pharmaceutical industry;

(cid:129) the housing in which the apes are kept is exceptionally poor?

Under what budget line of the Commission(cid:146)s budget does this grant come, and what is the legal basis for it?