WRITTEN QUESTION E-1826/01 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission. Plastics used in dentistry.
Date: 2001-06-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, dental medicine, plastics, product safety, scientific committee (EU)

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/15

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The Commission is aware of the events at the Temelin nuclear power plant (NPP) mentioned by the
Honourable Member. According to international practice, events occurring at nuclear installations are
classified according to the so-called INES scale (International Nuclear Events Scale). A recent Operational
Safety Review Team mission by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted that the events
reporting system at the Temelin NPP has a sufficiently low threshold. Up to 15 events were classified in
accordance with the INES methodology as conforming to INES 0 and none as INES 1 or higher. The
Commission is not aware of any different classification warranted with regard to other events.

It is also a common operational experience that the number of events is relatively higher during the initial
test phase of a new reactor. The frequency of events usually decreases after that period. It is unfortunate
that some press reports have highlighted automatic or manual shut downs at the Temelin NPP during the
early start-up phase as hazardous incidents although a shut down is a deliberate measure to preclude any
possibility of nuclear safety events even happening.

The responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear power plants lies with the operator under the
supervision of the respective national nuclear regulatory authority. On behalf of the Community, the
Atomic Question’s Group of the Council has recently concluded a report on ‘nuclear safety in the context
of enlargement’. The Commission has provided expert support to the elaboration of this report. The
towards holding them to the
Commission will orient
implementation of the recommendations contained in the said report and will provide them assistance in
this task.

interventions with candidate countries

its

(2002/C 115 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1826/01

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Subject: Plastics used in dentistry

On 18 October 1999 I put a written question relating to the PVC bite plane, used in orthodontic
treatment for children and young people, and containing the compound DOP (di-octylphthalate) which is
harmful to health.

In its answer E-2053/99 (1), the Commission said it would seek further information, from amongst others
the Finnish authorities, and ask the scientific committee’s advice if it appeared necessary. In the light of the
above, what measures has the Commission taken?

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000, p. 124.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2001)

As indicated in the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2053/99 on the
subject of phthalate use in orthodontic treatment (1), additional information has been obtained from the
Finnish Authorities (National Agency for Medicines) and the Medical Technology industries association
(Eucomed).

The Finnish authorities confirmed that they have examined in detail the safety of phthalates used in
orthodontic applications, including their migration behaviour. As the basis for the toxicological and risk
analysis evaluation of phthalates in orthodontic applications the Finnish Agency for Medicines used the
opinion of the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE).

C 115 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The conclusion of the Finnish authorities is that the exposure of children and young adults to phthalates
from orthodontic apparatus is lower than the maximum allowable exposure levels (Total Daily Intake, TDI)
identified in the CSTEE opinion on phthalates in soft PVC toys. This conclusion formed the basis for the
decision by the Finnish Medical Agency not to ban the use of phthalates in orthodontic applications.

Complementary information obtained from Eucomed also supports the Finnish Medical Agency’s
conclusions.

Given that the Finnish assessment of phthalates in orthodontic applications followed extensively the
opinion of the CSTEE on phthalates in soft PVC toys, and based on Commission’s own analysis of the
Finnish report and in the absence of new evidence, there appears no reason at present to seek further
scientific advice on this matter. The Commission will continue to follow developments concerning the use
of phthalates in orthodontic and other medical applications with a view to revisiting the matter if new
evidence to that effect becomes available.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.

(2002/C 115 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition of marriage and steps towards equal treatment

In a recent ruling on registered partnerships, the European Court of Justice stated that marriage is generally
defined as being between two heterosexuals. As you will be aware, the Netherlands has recently opened
civil marriage to homosexual citizens. At this time, the Netherlands is the only country in the world to
have done so.

The ruling on registered partnerships caused some confusion on what the Council’s interpretation will be.
Can the Council confirm that all its married employees will be treated equally, regardless of their sexual
orientation or the gender of their partner? Moreover, I would like to know what steps are being taken to
ensure equal treatment of married and non-married employees, including those with a registered, but non-
matrimonial, partnership.

Reply

(17 December 2001)

In its Judgment of 31 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P, D and Kingdom of Sweden
v. Council, the Court of Justice decided that the term ‘marriage’ as used in the Staff Regulations was to be
construed according to an independent Community definition.

The Court held in paragraph 34 of its judgment that ‘it is not in question that, according to the definition
generally accepted by the Member States, the term’marriage‘means a union between two persons of the
opposite sex’, confirming thereby the Court of First Instance Judgment (Case T-264/97 of 28 January
1999) that the Community concepts of marriage and spouse related ‘exclusively to a relationship based on
civil marriage in the traditional meaning of the term’ (paragraph 26 of that Judgment).

The Council does not believe that that definition of marriage in the Staff Regulations, determined by
reference to the current state of national laws as a whole, is called into question by the Netherlands’
adoption of a law authorising civil marriage between persons of the same sex, since the Netherlands C as
the Honourable Member points out C is the only Member State to have taken that decision.

The Council notes that the current Staff Regulations lay down provisions for married persons and that the
possible extension of those provisions to non-married persons is also to be examined at interinstitutional
level as part of the reform of the Staff Regulations.