WRITTEN QUESTION E-3470/01 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Uniform safety standards for nuclear power plants.
Date: 2002-01-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: harmonisation of standards, nuclear policy, nuclear power station, safety standard

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/67

(2002/C 172 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3465/01

by Amalia Sartori (PPE-DE), Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE),
Giorgio Lisi (PPE-DE) and Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the Decopaint study on the potential for reducing
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) due to the use of paints and varnishes

The Decopaint study on the potential for reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) due to
the use of paints and varnishes, published by the Commission in July 2001, envisages the possibility of
regulating the percentage of solvents in decorative paints and varnishes and the use of solvent-based
paints. In view of the importance of paint-producing SMEs for the European economy, the potentially
extremely negative impact of a legislative proposal on employment in the sector must be seriously
assessed.

Does the European Commission intend to carry out a cost/benefit analysis of the impact of the proposed
rules on SMEs?

Will the Commission take due account of the needs of SMEs and the effects on the SME paint sector when
it assesses the regulatory options in this area?

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2002)

The Commission will consider the impact of any proposal to reduce the content of volatile organic
compounds (e.g. decorative paints) in products on all affected sectors including small and medium-sized
enterprises (SME’s). In this context, the Decopaint study is one of the elements that will be taken into
consideration to prepare a proposal.

As is normal practice any draft proposal will be the subject of consultation with all stakeholders including
representatives from the SME sector where they are affected.

In the context of the recent discussions leading to the adoption of the Directive 2001/81/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on national emission ceilings for certain atmospheric
pollutants (1), reducing the solvent content of certain categories was stated to be a cost-effective route to
reducing emissions that lead to the formation of tropospheric ozone.

The preliminary analysis appears to confirm this. However when finalising a proposal the Commission will
endeavour to find ways to allow the industrial sectors affected to adapt to whatever new requirements may
evolve.

(1) OJ L 309, 27.11.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3470/01

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Uniform safety standards for nuclear power plants

(4 January 2002)

The Commission points out time and time again that, in the field of nuclear safety, the European Union
has no powers to adopt Union-wide standards. However, the Commission is very much entitled, and duty-
bound, to submit proposals on problems with European relevance in order, in so doing, to encourage
thought to be given to them in discussion processes.

C 172 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

With regard to nuclear safety, accordingly, the Council in its resolution of 18 June 1992 (1):

Requests the Member States to continue > with an active contribution from the Commission > to
ensure greater concerted effort between the national safety authorities in the Community on safety
criteria and requirements and on the incorporation of the conclusions reached into the practice
followed in the Member States, in order to arrive at a system of safety criteria and requirements
recognised throughout the Community.

In connection with this call on the Commission to show initiative in this field:

1. Does the Commission propose to act on the Council’s call? If so, what changes are already being
planned? When does the Commission intend to make those changes? If not, what are the
Commission’s grounds for such a decision despite the fact that that is what the Council called for in
its resolution of 18 June 1992?

2. How does the Commission propose to make its contribution in this field in future?

3. Are tangible initiatives and groundwork in this connection already being planned?

4. Are the conclusions reached being collated and assessed by the Commission? If so, what are the
Commission’s own conclusions from them? If not, what grounds does the Commission have for its
decision despite the fact that the Council resolution of 18 June 1992 refers to ‘an active contribution
from the Commission’?

(1) OJ C 172, 8.7.1992, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

From the formulation of her written question, the Commission deduces that the Honourable Member is
referring not to security, but to nuclear safety.

For the most part, the safety of nuclear power plants is the responsibility of nuclear operators under the
supervision of their national authorities. This area is not one in fact which is explicitly covered by the
Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. As the nuclear industry developed, however,
convergence at Community level began to appear necessary to support the Member States in their efforts
to harmonise safety practices. Thus, a Council Resolution of 22 July 1975 on the technological problems
of nuclear safety acknowledged that it was up to the Commission to act as a catalyser for initiatives taken
internationally in the area of nuclear safety.

With this Resolution in mind, the Commission set up several groups of experts dealing with nuclear safety
questions. These groups, whose members include representatives of the safety authorities of the Member
States, have actively contributed to harmonising practices in the area of nuclear safety. Following the
Council Resolution of 18 June 1992, participation in these expert groups was extended to representatives
of the central and eastern European countries and of the republics of the former Soviet Union.

Apart from this harmonisation work,
in accordance with the conclusions of the Cologne European
Council, the Commission has also taken an active part, with the Council, in drawing up a methodology
intended to evaluate the safety of nuclear power plants in the accession countries. This methodology made
this
possible a European outlook on European safety. The evaluation performed on the basis of
methodology in the first half of 2001 led to recommendations being sent to the candidate countries. When
these have been implemented, they will permit the nuclear power plants of these countries to reach a high
level of nuclear safety, equivalent to that of the Member States. The carrying out of these recommendations
has been the subject of monitoring, in which the Commission has participated, since the beginning of
January 2002.

It must also be pointed out that the Commission played a mediating role in order to facilitate dialogue
between the Czech and Austrian authorities over the Temelin nuclear power plant, which led to an
agreement on 29 November 2001.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/69

The work pursued under the auspices of the Commission to harmonise safety practices has made a very
significant contribution, not only to the quality of the safety of the Union’s nuclear power plants, but also
to the emergence of a European outlook approved by the Member States.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, in the conclusions of the Laeken Summit, the European Council
undertook to maintain a high level of nuclear safety in the Union. In particular, it stressed the need to
monitor the security and the safety of nuclear power plants. The Commission intends to participate
actively in this process inside the Union, in the same way that it participates in the evaluation of the safety
of nuclear power plants in the candidate countries.

(2002/C 172 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3474/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: The application of Competition Policy with regard to collective sale of broadcasting rights to

football matches

Does the Commission believe that the collective sale of broadcasting rights to football matches or any
other sport is in principle or potentially anti-competitive, and what conclusions has it reached following its
decision to launch a preliminary investigation into last year’s sale of £1,65 billion sale of the television
rights to England’s top-division football matches?

Does the Commission believe that FIFA’s collective sale of broadcasting rights to the football World Cup
Competition in Japan and Korea in 2002 to the Kirch Media Group is consistent with European Union
Competition Policy?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

Joint selling of media rights by sports associations may restrict competition in the sense of Article 81 of
the EC Treaty when trade between Member State is appreciably affected. In analysing the restrictive effect
of joint selling of media rights, the Commission will examine whether the conditions for an exemption are
possible. The Commission, which is very conscious about the potential benefits of economic solidarity in
sport, wishes to ensure that the very important media rights to football tournaments are not sold in a way
that harms competition on media markets and which, as a consequence, harms viewers. In this regard,
Premier League matches are of particular importance on the United Kingdom (UK) media markets: if there
are any anti-competitive aspects to the way in which the media rights are sold, their effects would be
especially harmful. The Commission is proceeding with an in-depth factual examination of the media
arrangements of the Football Associations Premier League (FAPL) and has been in contact with the FAPL
and third parties to this end.

The FAPL has not yet notified its media arrangements to the Commission. This does not prevent the
Commission from examining the case on its own initiative and such an examination is underway. The
duration is likely to depend on the degree of co-operation the Commission receives and the extent of third
party interest and comment.

The Commission is mindful that if action needs to be taken, it should be taken as quickly as possible.

The Commission has discussed the sale of the TV broadcasting rights of the World Cup Competition in
Japan and Korea in 2002 to the Kirch Media Group with the International Federation of Football
Association (FIFA).

The transaction has not been notified to the Commission and no complaints have been received.