WRITTEN QUESTION P-3133/01 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes.
Date: 2001-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, International Civil Aviation Organisation, aircraft, civil aviation, international standard, noise protection, opinion of the Court of Justice (EU), vehicle registration

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/229

Can the Commission answer the following:

(cid:17) Does it take the view that the implementation of this decree of the Dutch authorities as described in
Notification 2001/0267/NL would mean that timber treated with copper-based wood preservatives
could no longer be imported or used in the Netherlands?

(cid:17) Does it regard a prohibition on import and use of this kind as a barrier to trade and thus an

infringement of the rules governing the internal market?

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The notification mentioned by the Honourable Member (cid:17) 2001/0267/NL (cid:17) seeks to prohibit the import,
use and supply to third parties of wood treated with copper, copper/chromium or copper/chromium/
arsenic compounds for use in the Netherlands, as well as the keeping of stocks for commercial purposes
for the Dutch market.

Germany, Portugal, Finland, and the United Kingdom have submitted detailed opinions on this draft. The
issue of these detailed opinions has obliged the Dutch authorities to postpone the adoption of this text
until 21 December 2001. The Commission and Sweden have sent the Dutch authorities comments under
the terms of Article 8 (2) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June
1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and
regulations (1). In its comments, the Commission considered that a prohibition of this type is certainly
likely to considerably restrict the volume of imports of this type of product, and that the draft could, once
adopted, create barriers to the free movement of goods, under the terms of Articles 28 (ex-Article 30) and
30 (ex-Article 36) of the EC Treaty.

it should be stressed that a measure of this nature may,

in certain cases, be justified by
However,
overriding requirements of general public importance, provided that it is in proportion to its legitimate
objective. In its comments, the Commission indicated that an initial examination of the scientific evidence
provided by the Dutch authorities did not make it possible to reach a conclusion on the justification they
had given for the proposed measures. As a result, the Commission asked the Dutch authorities to postpone
adoption of the draft so that it could lay the scientific evidence transmitted by them before the Scientific
Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE), to hear its opinion about the scientific
soundness of the planned ban.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2002/C 115 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3133/01

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 November 2001)

Subject: Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on the registration and operation within the Community of

certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes

Having regard to the opinion of
the Advocate-General, delivered on 20 September 2001, on the
preliminary ruling on the invalidity of Articles 2 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1) which restrict
the use of aircraft at European airports in the interests of protection against noise, given that this
Regulation was based, curiously and questionably, on design criteria rather than on performance criteria,
and in view of the fact that we may not pursue design criteria, as distinct from performance criteria, which
favour one jet-engine manufacturer over another, could the Commission please indicate whether it will be
proposing the repeal or amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 on the registration and
operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes?

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 1.

C 115 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

the Advocate-General of 20 September 2001 on the
The Commission has noted the opinion of
compatibility of Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 of 29 April 1999 on the
registration and operation within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which
have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16
to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (1) with Community law. It
awaits the decision of the Court of Justice with interest.

The Commission has no intention of drawing conclusions before that decision. Independently of that
decision, the Commission adopted on 28 November 2001 a draft directive implementing the recent
decision of the Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on measures concerning
aircraft noise.

(1) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999.

(2002/C 115 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3134/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 November 2001)

Subject: Impact of public funding for measures to prevent BSE

As early as January of this year, the Commission asked Member States to forward information concerning
national contributions towards the cost of measures to prevent BSE and, further to the Agriculture Council
meeting on 26 February 2001, the Commission announced that information on this was insufficient and
of varying quality (press release of 27 February 2001). Over the last eight months, that situation has
evidently remained unchanged,
in its answer of 3 September 2001 to Written Question
E-1821/01 (1), the Commission again said that it did not have sufficient information in this connection.

since,

In view of the above, why has the Commission not yet produced an overview of measures in Member
States and their regions, including any policy measures needed?

In its answer of 3 September 2001 to Written Question E-1821/01, the Commission states that longer-
lasting substantial differences between levels of public funding for measures to prevent BSE may have an
impact on the relative competitive position of producers.

the considerable differences in government and to meet

Furthermore,
the
differences in the cost of BSE tests in the Member States, and the differences in public funding for animal
meal processing are resulting in artificial flows of cattle for slaughter to Member States with the lowest
overall costs. The same adverse impact resulting from differences in the cost of processing animal meal is
also to be found in the pig and poultry sectors.

the cost of BSE testing,

Are such artificial trade flows involving cattle for slaughter between Member States compatible with the
objectives included in EC Regulation No 1254/1999 (2) for the common organisation of the market in the
beef and veal sector, and does the Commission agree that, on the basis of the above considerations, it is
imperative that there should be parity between national and European authorities’ policies on aid to meet
the cost of BSE testing and animal meal processing, and that competition between registered BSE test
laboratories in the EU should be allowed, for the proper functioning of the European internal market?

On what timescale does the Commission intend to take action in this connection, and what is the general
thrust of the solution it has in mind?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 113.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.