WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/01 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Directive 98/34 — notification 2001/0267/NL.
Date: 2001-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, chemical product, free movement of goods, import restriction, national law, scientific committee (EU), technical standard, testing, wood industry

C 115 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Whereas in other European regions the first funds have now already been released, the Bavarian draft (as
well as presumably the other German drafts) has still not been approved. As approval
from the
Commission must be followed by the Bavarian selection procedure there will be a substantial delay in
carrying out the individual projects. This is leading to an enormous amount of uncertainty in the financing
and development of the planned projects.

When can a decision be expected on the submitted draft?

Why has this decision been delayed for so long when the procedure has been long completed in other
European regions?

What will happen to the 2001 funds if the approval procedure is not completed by the end of the current
year?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2001)

The Commission in close cooperation with the Bavarian authorities intends to finalise the negotiations on
the Bavarian programme as soon as possible in order to enable a Commission approval by the end of the
year 2001. The Bavarian authorities received all information to adapt their programme to the requirements
of the Commission notice to the Member States of 14 April 2000 laying down guidelines for the
Community initiative for rural development (Leader+).

Shortly after the approval of the rural development programmes in autumn 2000 the German authorities
introduced requests for amendments of most of the German rural development plans. The Commission
followed the request of the German authorities to give priority to the assessment and approval of the
modifications of the German rural development plans.

In addition there are still open questions to be clarified with the Bavarian authorities on the content of the
Bavarian Leader+ Programme.

For those programmes where all
formal consultations and negotiations have not been successfully
concluded by the end of the year any Community credits European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
Fund (EAGGF)-Guidance Section concerning the Year 2001 will be lost. The re-budgetisation exercise
undertaken earlier this year, which permitted Year 2000 credits for those Structural Fund programmes
which had not been approved by end of 2000 to be spread out over the 2002-2006 period, was
exceptional and was explicitly foreseen under point 17 of the inter-institutional agreement of 6 May 1999.
No similar provision is foreseen for 2001.

In order to ensure that the outstanding Bavarian Leader+ programme is at a sufficiently advanced stage to
avoid any risk of loss of credits, it is essential that negotiations are concluded in the near future and that a
revised final version which reflects fully the results of the various consultation procedures within the
Commission services and any bilateral negotiations between the Commission and the Bavarian authorities
is received by the Commission.

(2002/C 115 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3123/01

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Directive 98/34 < notification 2001/0267/NL

On 20 June 2001 the Dutch authorities submitted a draft ‘Decree of the Minister of Housing, Planning and
the Environment laying down rules for copper-based wood preservatives’ pursuant to Directive 98/34/
EC (1) (notification 2001/0267/NL). The decree seeks to prohibit the import and use of wood treated with
copper-based preservatives in the Netherlands.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/229

Can the Commission answer the following:

< 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?

< 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 < 2001/0267/NL < 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.