WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Single and double bulkheads inside road tankers.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, commercial vehicle, transport of dangerous goods, transport regulations

C 81 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

The following modifications are foreseen:

(cid:129) the directive becomes mandatory for all kind of vehicles instead of being voluntary within the type-

approval system for light and heavy duty commercial vehicles;

(cid:129) additional mirrors shall be mounted to certain vehicles (front mirrors on trucks, exterior rear view
mirrors on the passenger(cid:146)s side of passenger cars) in order to increase the field of indirect view;

(cid:129) certain characteristics of mirrors (e.g. curvature of the surface) are modified according to technical

progress in order to increase the field of indirect view;

(cid:129) certain mirrors can be replaced by other systems for indirect view like camera/monitor systems.

(cid:129) although the structure of the original Directive 71/127 EEC has been maintained as much as possible
the content of this directive has been altered significantly. Therefore it is proposed to repeal Directive
71/127/EEC and its amendments and replace it by the new directive.

The Commission has prepared a final draft which has been sent to the Commission(cid:146)s Motor Vehicle
Working Group for discussion with Member States and industry. Following this a revised version was
prepared taking into account some comments but not changing the main elements of the original proposal
as discussed within the ad-hoc group. On 23 October 2001 the necessary consultation within the
Commission services was launched with a deadline of 14 November. Thereafter the proposal will be
amended, if necessary, and the procedure for the adoption as a Commission Proposal will commence.
Immediately after its adoption (foreseen for the end of November/beginning December) the text will be
transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council. The Commission expects support for this draft
since the reduction of blind spot areas around vehicles has been announced a priority issue for many
Member States.

Unlike the arrangements for passenger cars of category M1, a compulsory system of Community whole
vehicle type-approval (WVTA) has not been introduced for the type-approval of commercial vehicles of
category N1.

National type-approvals are therefore generally granted on the basis of a variable mix of national and
Community prescriptions. The manufacturer is free to decide on which particular set of
legislative
prescriptions (national or Community) a request for component type-approval should be based.

Member States are not therefore prevented from introducing national legislation which enables commercial
vehicles to be fitted with such mirrors.

The Commission has no statistical data about vehicles registered within the Community which are already
equipped with parts complying with the proposed measures nor has it data at its disposal about the kind
of legislation (national or Community) used for component type-approval.

(1) OJ L 147, 14.6.1988.
(2) OJ L 68, 22.3.1971.

(2002/C 81 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Single and double bulkheads inside road tankers

(9 October 2001)

Swedish is said to have been warned in late June 1998 for not accepting the import of road tankers with
single bulkheads. According to newspaper reports, the Commission maintained that the Swedish double
bulkhead requirement was unjustified on safety grounds.

Are these newspaper reports true? Will the Commission give further details and describe its views on the
matter?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/207

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 2001)

The Commission launched a 226 procedure after having received complaints demonstrating that only
double wall tankers were allowed in Sweden. Typically such a requirement would be considered as
infringing Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty. After contacts with the Swedish authorities, they
certified that no rule or practice in Sweden imposes a ban on single wall tankers. Consequently the case
was closed.

The Swedish authorities clarified that in roadworthiness tests, it was prescribed that certain simultaneous
loading of different substances was not allowed, thus creating the impression that trailers with two tankers
but with single walls were not allowed to be imported or used.

(2002/C 81 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Patent protection at the expense of small undertakings

(9 October 2001)

Short-term patent protection has been criticised by small undertakings as an obstacle to undertakings other
than the patent holders and it is this factor which affects most small undertakings. Short-term patent
protection allows large companies to obtain automatic protection over broad technical fields. Japanese and
US companies for example are going in for (cid:145)carpet bombing(cid:146), which substantially reduces the options for
small less wealthy companies. If there is a large number of patents and short-term patents in a given
technical field it is difficult and costly for a small company to operate there.

Does the Commission agree that this situation may be the result of short-term patent protection and what
does it intend to do by way of follow up action to prevent small companies from being adversely affected
by the (cid:145)carpet bombing(cid:146) by large companies of broad areas of technology?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The protection of inventions by utility model is generally seen as a more flexible, less costly form of
protection than patent protection. This is why this instrument is often considered as being well suited to
businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are active in certain sectors of
innovation.

However, the Commission is aware that this form of protection may give rise to concerns, particularly on
the part of small businesses, in those Member States, such as in Sweden, where protection by utility model
does not yet exist.

On the other hand, in Member States which already have protection by utility model (cid:129) and in some cases
have had such protection for a great many years (cid:129) the Commission has no knowledge of any particular
difficulties facing small businesses, such as those raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission acknowledges, however, that the use of this form of protection may, in certain cases, give
rise to abuses, and as part as the discussions concerning the proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Directive approximating the legal arrangements for the protection of
inventions by utility
model (1), the Commission has taken into account the concerns expressed on this subject by the parties
involved.