WRITTEN QUESTION P-0249/02 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding for a prototype riding helmet (L-TC158 WG 5) DG Enterprise.
Date: 2002-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European standard, equidae, protective equipment, safety standard, sport, standardisation

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/243

detected in Germany and an appropriate complaint made to Italy. The German methods of measurement
used were apparently called into question by the Italian authorities and the matter shelved. Italian firms
therefore continue to be permitted to sell proseccos with a pressure of more than 2,5 bar.

The addition of gold leaf to sparkling wines has been banned throughout the EU. However, Austrian
sparkling wine producers have now been given special permission to conduct a large-scale trial. As a
result, Austrian firms are now selling sparkling wine containing gold leaf without facing competition.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to stop the maximum limit in respect of pressure of
semi-sparkling wine being exceeded in Italy?

Who gave special permission for a large-scale trial of sparkling wine containing gold leaf in Austria, and
does the Commission consider that this trial contravenes competition rules in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission was unaware of the matters raised by the Honourable Member.

It is making enquiries of the Member States concerned and will inform the Honourable Member of the
outcome.

(2002/C 147 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0249/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Funding for a prototype riding helmet (L-TC158 WG 5) DG Enterprise

Riding helmets currently available are not totally safe.

On the basis of a petition forwarded to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions (Petition
No 1030/96 of 28 April 1996), the Commission has asked CEN to draw up a high-specification safety
standard for safety helmets. If the work of Working Group 5 (L-TC 158 WG 5) is to progress smoothly,
funding will be required to cover the cost of developing a prototype helmet. Now that a proposal, based
on quotations submitted by Limerick University, Ireland, for testing and by DERA for manufacture of a
new high-technology prototype, has been drawn up, will the Commission please indicate the reason for
the delay in the allocation of funds and when those funds will be made available?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The Honourable Member’s assertion that riding helmets are not completely safe is accurate. This is
corroborated by the introduction of standards on helmets in Europe and other parts of the world. More
specifically, the European standard (EN) 1384:1996 on ‘Helmets for equestrian activities’, which was
subject to an amendment published in October 2001, includes the following introductory statement:

The protection afforded by a helmet depends on the circumstances of the accident and the wearing of
a helmet does not always ensure the avoidance of death or long-term invalidity.

C 147 E/244

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Standard EN 1384 defines and quantifies the basic requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of
21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective
equipment (PPE) (1). Whilst application of the standard is voluntary, it ensures a high level of protection for
users, in accordance with the objectives of this Directive adopted under Article 95 of the EC Treaty. It has
not been the subject of a safeguard clause,
i.e. officially called into question by the Member States’
administrations.

The work on standardising riding helmets forms part of a general programme of rationalising and
standardising normative requirements in the field of head protection. It should, however, be stressed that
the experts in the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Working Group responsible for standard
EN 1384 (TC 158 WG5) have very different approaches and points of view regarding the requirements
and methods of measurement to be adopted. These divergences within WG5 have been echoed at
Parliament level, as pointed out by the Honourable Member, particularly through petition No 1030/96 of
28 April 1996, which closed on 20 March 2000.

In this context, the CEN is continuing to carry out technical work on the speedy revision of standard EN
1384:1996, on the basis of a Commission mandate. The Commission, which is responsible for
implementing Directive 89/686/EEC, is paying particularly close attention to standard EN 1384, and has
worked more on this standard than on the 300 or so other standards concerning PPE put together.

Leaving aside the technical differences among the CEN experts, applications for the financing of study
projects which seek to support standardisation work are examined by the Commission under financial
procedures which seek to ensure the transparency and optimum allocation of the resources at its disposal.
The funding application for a prototype riding helmet mentioned in the Honourable Member’s question
forms part of a study for which a quotation has been submitted to the Commission by the CEN. This
quotation made provision for the research subsidies to be divided between representatives of the two main
opposing groupings within this working group.

The Commission informed the CEN in a letter of 13 September 2000 that whilst there is no objection to
the principle of funding the proposed tests, it is nevertheless necessary to follow the transparent procedure
of a public invitation to tender in order to ensure the maximum possible level of impartiality. The
Commission also asked the CEN, in a letter of 22 October 2001, to draw up a new quotation which takes
account of how the work has developed in the interim.

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989.

(2002/C 147 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0250/02

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: Freedom of movement for workers

Freedom of movement
the Treaty, Directives
91/533/EEC (1) and 96/71/EEC (2), Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3), Regulation (EEC) No 1612/1968 (4)
and the judgments of the Court of Justice relating to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

is covered by Articles 39 and 40 of

for workers

The Commission was to have submitted a report to the European Parliament and the Council assessing
Directive 96/71/EEC in December 2001. There are a large number of cases where EU workers have been
adversely affected by illegal recruitment, unequal pay and working conditions, and violations of the
principles of national and Community legislation on social protection and contracts and of fundamental
rights. Moreover, the integration of the labour market implies worker mobility.

Taking this into account, can the Commission assess the irregularities detected in the Member States as
regards national and Community legislation, as well as the measures taken to prevent and punish these
practices, particularly on the part of agencies supplying temporary staff, which are operating both legally
and illegally on a large scale?

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(4) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.