WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/01 by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission. Protection of coastal areas.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, coastal protection, environmental impact, environmental research, erosion, invitation to tender

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/221

Member States, where such lights are blue. This means that emergency lights displayed by priority and
emergency services, such as the fire brigade and ambulances, are of the same amber colour as the lights
used by other services, such as refuse-collection and slow-moving vehicles, with blue lights being reserved
for police vehicles only. As well as being a source of confusion, this situation causes traffic problems for
emergency vehicles and also puts people at risk.

Regulation No 65 of the UN Economic Commission for Europe regulates the standardisation of emergency
lights, but it does not specify what colour is to be assigned to each type of vehicle. In any case, the
Community has not ratified this Regulation because the Member States wish to retain the right to regulate
the use and technical specifications of such equipment.

In its answer to a Written Question (E-3022/00) the Commission said (cid:145)should there be any change in this
desire, however, the Community could well plan to ((cid:133)) harmonise the equipment of emergency vehicles
in order to distinguish them from slow-moving vehicles(cid:146).

More recently the Council replied to another written question by the same author (E-4033/00) saying that
if the Commission submitted a proposal
in this sphere the Council would undertake to examine the
proposed provisions.

In view of this answer from the Council and the criteria of public safety mentioned in the first paragraph
above, does
to introduce
standardisation in the use of emergency lights, as expressed by the relevant professions in both Spain
and the rest of Europe?

the Commission not consider

there is already sufficient

(cid:145)desire(cid:146)

that

Can the Commission say why it is so reluctant to standardise emergency lights, when this is precisely an
issue which requires an urgent solution owing to the risk of accidents it entails for the general public in
Europe?

(1) OJ C 113 E, 18.4.2001, p. 230.
(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

The Commission is concerned to improve road safety throughout the Community and to remove barriers
to trade. In the field of automotive construction both these objectives are pursued.

The construction of emergency vehicles, and in particular the colour of the emergency lights used by them
is not an area that is currently regulated by the European legislation. These vehicles are constructed or
modified in accordance with the requirements of the purchasing authority taking account of their specific
operational requirements. Their differences could not be considered as barriers to trade.

The Commission acknowledges that in other Member States than Spain the use of blue emergency lights is
not restricted to the police. Without firm evidence that the use of amber lights by ambulances and fire
engines in Spain represents a significant risk, there is no justification for bringing forward proposals to
require all emergency vehicles to be fitted with blue emergency lights. However, the Commission will
investigate this issue further in contact with relevant Spanish authorities.

(2002/C 40 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2217/01

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) and Paolo Costa (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of coastal areas

(24 July 2001)

(cid:129) With reference to Written Question E-0956/01 (1) by Mrs Sbarbati, the answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m

on behalf of the Commission on 14 June 2001,

C 40 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

(cid:129) in view of the position of the European Parliament expressed in the McKenna report (A5-0219/2001)

adopted on 5 July 2001 and

(cid:129) the fact that in the 2001 budget heading B4-3301 makes provision for funding pilot projects for the
protection of coastlines with an appropriation of € 5 million for studies and assessments regarding
coastal erosion in European regions,

can the Commission supply information concerning the dates and procedures for the publication of calls
for tender to carry out these studies?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001.

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

(1 August 2001)

The call for offers related to implementation of Budget Line 2001/ B4 3301 was published in the Official
Journal on 10 July 2001 with reference S130-088260. The deadline for submission of offers is 20 August
2001.

(2002/C 40 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Ban on payment for advocates(cid:146) travelling time

Under the Danish legal system, an advocate may be appointed to act in criminal cases. He is then paid
from the public purse for his services, the final amount of the fees depending on the outcome of the case.

The State often also covers the advocate(cid:146)s travel expenses and loss of earnings where he has to travel, but
in some cases the law provides that the State shall not pay for travelling time, see para. 336c(3) of the
Administration of Justice Act. In such cases a local advocate will be more competitive than an out-of-town
or foreign lawyer.

This can be circumvented by agreement between the client and his advocate from outside. For example, a
Danish lawyer with an office in London makes 12 journeys corresponding to 100 hours travel at
DKR 2 500 to act in a case in the High Court Eastern Division in Copenhagen. It is agreed that The
defendant or his family agree to pay the advocate KR 250 000 for his travel to the Court where the Court
has previously declined to bear the cost.

Paragraph 336c(5) of the Administration of Justice Act does however contain provisions which may be
interpreted as banning the defendant/accused from agreeing to cover his advocate(cid:146)s travelling time, even
where payment from the public purse is refused and regardless of whether the accused/defendant at any
point seeks to have this amount covered from public funds.

Under this arrangement the lawyer would be at a substantial disadvantage compared with a local lawyer.

The accused is also put at a disadvantage as his right to free choice of counsel is in fact removed if he
himself is not allowed to defray the cost of travelling time for the counsel he wishes to have appointed to
act for him in his criminal case.

Can this provision prohibiting a defendant/accused from agreeing with his advocate to cover the cost of
the lawyer(cid:146)s travelling time be regarded as complying with ordinary competition law and in particular the
Community(cid:146)s competition law and law of contract?