WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EIB funding to build new schools and replace old buildings incorporating asbestos.
Date: 2002-01-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, European Investment Bank, Greece, asbestos, building industry, building subsidy, educational institution, financing, infringement of EU law, public health

C 160 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

No other special Community funds or Community compensations can be provided. Similar conditions
were applied by the Commission for other Member States when they experienced adverse weather
conditions at the end of 1999.

(2002/C 160 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/02

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Ban on catgut in the Federal Republic of Germany

(17 January 2002)

The German authorities have banned the use of catgut as surgical sutures because of its animal origins,
even if the raw material comes from stocks which are not at risk. At the end of November 2001, the
Scientific Steering Committee set up on the basis of Directive 93/42/EEC (1) classified catgut as safe.

Does the Commission judge this state of affairs to be compatible with Community law?

Does it intend to take action against the Federal Republic of Germany?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The question submitted to the Commission by the Honourable Member refers to an opinion delivered by
the Scientific Steering Committee at the end of November 2001. The Commission draws the attention to
the fact that the opinion focuses on sourcing from GBR I (Geographical BSE Risk category I) countries
only. Sourcing from other GBR categories (II, III and IV) was not addressed. It effectively considers ‘safe’ the
material of animal origin from closed herds and GBR I countries, including ‘catgut’.

The Commission would like to highlight that tissue used in catgut cannot undergo inactivation that would
ensure it to be prion negative < the tissue’s molecular structure would suffer damage making it unusable
for that purpose. Therefore ‘sourcing’ plays a determinant role.

At the level of risk management, however, different elements may intervene,
including the public’s
perception on the degree of safety and the level of health protection provided, in particular when suitable
alternatives are available on the market. The Commission examines with Member States the consequences
to be drawn from this opinion in the light of such elements. In that context, it will take position on the
German measures.

(2002/C 160 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: EIB funding to build new schools and replace old buildings incorporating asbestos

The continued use of many public school buildings containing asbestos in the Prefecture of Ilía (in Ioni,
Velanidi, Simopoulo, Latta, Kato Panagia, etc.) since 1967 and of 18 such schools in the Prefecture of
Thessaloniki since 1978 raises a very serious issue, particularly since other regions of the country are also
affected. In addition, the Greek Government was late in entering the relevant building projects in the
Second CFS.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/177

Given that the use of all forms of asbestos will be banned in the EU from 1 January 2005 at the latest
under Directive 1999/77/EC (1) because it constitutes a direct public health threat and may cause lung
cancer and other respiratory diseases and nine Member States have already banned asbestos, and given also
that the European Investment Bank has decided to grant Greece a loan of 400 million euros to build new
school buildings,

will the Commission say:

1.

2.

Is the replacement of the school buildings incorporating asbestos one of the projects which will
receive co-funding from the European Investment Bank? If so, in which regions of Greece is this
replacement work due to take place?

In how many schools has replacement work been carried out under the second CSF and what are the
schools in question? How many schools still have buildings containing asbestos?

3. What measures does it intend to take to address this problem and examine the situation which still
exists in Greece in breach of the relevant Community directives as a result of the failure of the Greek
authorities to carry out suitable controls and the necessary supervision to protect public health from
the dangers posed by asbestos?

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999, p. 18.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2002)

The Commission is aware of the issue concerning asbestos, which can have serious effects on human
health, by, e.g. inducing asbestosis, mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum and contributing also to
the incidence of other lung cancers.

Having regard to these adverse effects and in order to ensure a high level of human health,
the
Commission has prohibited the placing on the market and use of all asbestos fibres, except minor
derogation, by Commission Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the
sixth time Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
dangerous substances and preparations (asbestos) (1).

the European Investment Bank (EIB) has,

in December 2001, signed a
With regard to funding,
€ 400 million loan for the upgrading of old and the construction of new primary and secondary school
infrastructure, and the provision of adequate tools and equipment for this infrastructure in the region of
Attica. The project is executed by the School Building Organisation (SBO), a public entity converted to
private company status in 1998, with the Greek State still its sole shareholder.

The project envisages over 400 works, which comprise a combination of construction of new and
refurbishment or expansion of existing buildings to provide over 3500 extra classrooms. SBO has assured
the EIB that it does not use asbestos in its works and indicated that asbestos has not been used in the
construction of school buildings in Attica since 1980. Should asbestos be found in older buildings subject
to refurbishment, removal of asbestos and other dangerous materials would be part of the refurbishment
process.

With regard to the involvement of the Community Support Framework (CSF) for Greece during the
1994-1999 programming period, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the replies given
by the Commission to his written question P-0879/99 (2) and his oral question H-0782/00 (3). The
Commission has asked the Greek competent authorities to provide a list of all schools that had asbestos
replaced through the previous CSF and will provide it to the Honourable Member upon receipt.

C 160 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

With regard to the question of whether Greece is in breach of Community Law, it is essential to point out
the following:

(a) Member States must comply with the above-mentioned Directive 1999/77/EC by 1 January 2005 at

the latest (Article 2.1);

(b) From 1 January 2005, Member States may not allow the introduction of new applications for

chrysotile asbestos on their territory (Article 2.3);

(c) The use of products containing asbestos fibres referred to above which are already installed and/or in
service before the implementation date of this Directive shall continue to be authorised until they are
disposed of or reach the end of their service life. However, Member States may, for reasons of
protection of health, prohibit within their territory the use of such products before they are disposed
of or reach the end of their service life (Article 1, Annex).

This means that the Directive does not require asbestos to be removed from buildings. Greece is therefore
not in breach of Directive 1999/77/EC provided it implements that Directive before 1 January 2005.

(1) OJ L 207, 6.8.1999.
(2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999.
(3) Written answer from 4.10.2000.

(2002/C 160 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Repatriation of bodies between Member States

Is the Commission aware of the frequent delays, expenses and suffering for families involved attempting to
repatriate a body back to the home Member State from another Member State?

Given the differences in the approaches and regulations between Member States, would the Commission be
prepared to investigate this issue and bring forward proposals for the adoption of a common policy?

(2002/C 160 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0087/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: Intra-Community repatriation of the bodies of dead EU citizens

The fact that a growing number of European citizens are established in a Member State other than their
country of origin has led to an increase in the number of corpses needing to be repatriated from one
Member State to another. However, repatriation raises all sorts of problems,
in particular financial
difficulties for the families, faced with bureaucratic obstacles, which vary from one country to another. The
rules on cross-border carriage of human remains are based on the 1937 Berlin agreements and the 1973
Strasbourg convention. However, these agreements are based on the assumption that border checks are
carried out and are therefore becoming more difficult to apply as borders are abolished.

In the light of the above, the Commission is requested to provide the following information:

1. Does the Treaty authorise the free transfer within the Community of the corpses of people who have

died on EU territory?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the rules on such transfers are not

more complex or more restrictive than those in force in a Member State?