WRITTEN QUESTION P-1834/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Toxic substances in ship paint.
Date: 2001-06-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, marketing restriction, painting, toxic substance, vessel

C 350 E/232

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Separately, the Commission is aware of an inquiry opened by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) (cid:129) the
British competition authority (cid:129) into allegations that the major music companies are taking steps to
restrain parallel imports of CDs into the United Kingdom. The effect of such restrictions would be to
maintain artificially high prices for CDs in the United Kingdom. The Commission and the OFT are in
regular contacts on this issue.

The Commission believes that its active examination of the music sector is necessary given the highly
concentrated nature of the music market, and the benefits that competition can have for consumers. The
Commission will open further investigations if evidence emerges of competition law concerns.

(2001/C 350 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1824/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 June 2001)

Subject: Decision-making and constructive abstention in defence matters

Title V, Article 23 of the Treaty of Amsterdam [Treaty on European Union] states that (cid:145)Decisions under
this Title shall be taken by the Council acting unanimously.(cid:146) This article also enshrines the principle of
(cid:145)constructive abstention(cid:146). How does the Commission interpret this passage? Can the Treaty be interpreted
as meaning that even a single Member State may (cid:129) in accordance with the requirement for unanimity (cid:129)
prevent the deployment of the Crisis Management Force for particular duties if it votes against the decision
and does not favour abstaining from taking a decision?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Theoretically, the unanimity rule does indeed mean that a single Member State could block a Council
decision. However, constructive abstention was introduced into the Treaty expressly to prevent such
stalemates. Any member of the Council abstaining is not obliged to apply the decision, but must accept
that the decision commits the Union. In a spirit of mutual solidarity, the Member State concerned refrains
from any action likely to conflict with or impede Union action based on that decision and the other
Member States respect its position.

(2001/C 350 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1834/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Subject: Toxic substances in ship paint

Recent analyses carried out by Greenpeace in the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki have given readings for
TBT (a toxic substance contained in antifouling paints) in excess of the limits proposed by international
conventions.

the high toxicity of

In view of
the German Government had asked the
Commission to draw up a uniform European policy to restrict the use of TBT. Since that was not
forthcoming within the time limits set by Germany, however, the German Government decided in January
2001 to ban the use of TBT through national legislation. From 1 January 2003, therefore, TBT-based
paints will no longer be available in Germany.

this particular substance,

As the use of TBT in Greece and the other Member States is prohibited only on vessels shorter than 25 m
and on installations or equipment which are completely or partly below water, will the Commission issue
a general ban on that substance in view of the fact that less toxic substitutes are also available?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/233

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2001)

The Member States which are Party to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) are currently
negotiating, together with the Commission, an international Convention on harmful anti-fouling systems,
including tributyltin (TBT).
in the framework of the discussions on Commission Directive
1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999 adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I to Council Directive
76/769/EEC on the approximations of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), the Member States and the Commission agreed to await the results of the
decision of IMO, to ban TBT globally before introducing a ban at Community level.

In 1999,

The Commission is fully supportive of a global ban by 1 January 2003 on the application of organotin
compounds which act as biocides in antifouling systems on ships as proposed by the Mar(cid:237)ne Environment
Protection Committee of the IMO. As negotiations stand, the future Convention to be considered in an
IMO Diplomatic Conference in October 2001, will probably call for a general ban on TBT which takes
effect on the proposed date.

Following the Diplomatic Conference, the Commission will immediately prepare a Commission Directive
adapting Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
dangerous substances and preparations (2)
to technical progress. Such a Directive would follow the
Committee procedure and could be completed in three to six months. This would leave sufficient time
before 1 January 2003 for the Member States to transpose the provisions into national law.

(1) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

(2001/C 350 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1850/01

by Francisca Sauquillo PØrez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Refusal to fund the (cid:145)Algerian Watch(cid:146) web site

(26 June 2001)

The Commission has refused to grant financial assistance to the (cid:145)Algerian Watch(cid:146) Internet portal on the
grounds that projects to be funded must be in line with the indicative programme in the areas and sectors
determined jointly in advance by the Commission and the Algerian Government.

Is it usually the case under the procedures for selecting projects or activities to be financed by the
Commission under the MEDA programme that the governments of the recipient countries sanction the
approval of and funding for projects?

Does the Commission consider the (cid:145)Algerian Watch(cid:146) web site to be suitable for Community funding
inasmuch as it helps to foster democracy, transparency, and pluralism in Algeria?

Has it been instructed by any Algerian or European authority, institution, or organisation not to finance
the web site?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2001)

In Meda co-operation,
indicative
programme setting out the fields and sectors for Community assistance. All operations must therefore be
part of the overall programme agreed with the Algerian government.

the Commission and the partner government agree a three-year