WRITTEN QUESTION P-0565/02 by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission. Lisbon strategy.
Date: 2002-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU employment policy, labour market

C 160 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The use of studded tyres is not harmonised at Community level. For this reason, Member States are entitled
to adopt their own rules on their use, provided these rules comply with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

Article 28 of the EC Treaty prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports and any measures having the
equivalent effect, capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade
(cf. Judgment of the Court of 11 July 1974, Case 8/74, Dassonville, ECR 1974, 837, point 5).

The German provisions that forbid the use of studded tyres are intended to prevent these tyres being
imported into Germany and they oblige drivers from other Member States whose vehicles are equipped
with these tyres to take specific measures (change the tyres/buy other tyres), if they wish to travel on the
German road network.

It has been held consistently by the Court that certain restrictive measures by Member States may however
be justified, if it can be shown that they are necessary for reasons referred to in Article 30 of the EC Treaty,
particularly those of public policy and security and the protection of health and life of humans or for
imperative requirements such as road safety and/or the protection of the environment (cf. the recent
Judgment of the Court of 12 October 2000 in the Case C-314/98 ‘Snellers Auto’s BV’).

The Commission considers that a ban on using studded tyres during certain periods of the year (e.g. on a
clear road at an inappropriate speed), or in general, may be justified by reasons of road safety and
protection of the environment.

With regard to this, the Commission refers to the answer it gave to written question E-2401/98 from
Ms Matikainen-Kallström (1).

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999.

(2002/C 160 E/283)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0565/02

by Elisa Damião (PSE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Lisbon strategy

The Lisbon strategy for the years up to 2005 and 2010 has set employment growth targets to increase the
number of women in work to 60 % and the overall rate to 70 %. The hope is that this growth will be
founded simultaneously on technological innovation and social cohesion. However, the forward study by
the Science and Technology Observatory on the impact of
technology and structural change on
employment, covering the period up to 2020, is at variance with the targets and even maintains that the
future productivity gain will benefit the economy but not employment, which, on the contrary, will
continue to rise in the traditional business sectors.

How does the Commission propose to respond? Will it revise the Lisbon targets or adopt more realistic
employment growth strategies?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission remains committed to the achievement of the employment targets defined by the
European Council
in Lisbon (23 and 24 March 2000) and Stockholm (23 and 24 March 2001) and
confirmed in Laeken (14 and 15 December 2001). Its synthesis report prepared for the Barcelona meeting

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/223

of the European Council states that ‘the employment rate targets of the European Union for 2005 and
2010 must be maintained and efforts must be accelerated to create more and better jobs and get more
people to work’.

Industries based on information technologies and more broadly on the development of knowledge are to
play a central part in achieving this objective. This is clearly indicated in research undertaken by the
Commission. Employment in Europe 2001 report points out that between 1995 and 2000, 1,5 million
jobs were created in the high-tech sector, and 5,5 million in the high-education sectors.

The report also showed at the same time new patterns of employment and growth in the European labour
markets. Employment content of growth has risen since 1985 C an elasticity of employment growth to
the gross domestic product (GDP) growth twice that of 1980s.

(2002/C 160 E/284)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0567/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2002)

Subject: Disparities in the authorisation of plant protection products in the EU

The use of plant protection products by growers of fruit and vegetables is controlled differently in the
Member States of the European Union. Many of these products are banned in Germany but permitted in
neighbouring Member States.

Evidently, directives and regulations concerning consumer protection and the environment are being
interpreted differently in the individual Member States, as a result of which distortions of competition are
occurring in the EU.

What is the Commission’s general view of this problem?

What measures will the Commission take to eliminate these distortions of competition?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

Council Directive 91/414/EEC on the placing of plant protection products on the market provides for a
harmonised Community system of evaluation of active substances at Community level and a system of
evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products containing those substances at national level.
The Directive, in its Annex VI, provides a set of Uniform Principles for risk assessment that Member States
must use when completing their evaluations. Pending the completion of Community evaluations and
Commission Decisions on individual active substances,
the Directive provides transitional measures
whereby Member States may continue to apply national criteria in granting authorisations as long as the
safety requirements in the Directive are met.

Differing uses and authorisations of plant protection products in the Member States can arise for several
reasons including (i) different marketing strategies by the companies producing the products (i.e. companies
might choose not to apply for authorisation of their products in certain Member States), (ii) different crops,
(iii) different pest pressures, (iv) different environmental conditions, and (v) the levels of environmental or
worker protection, higher than those laid down in the directive, that some Member States choose to apply
when evaluating requests for authorisations. The Commission does not feel that this situation resulted for
the moment in significant distortion of competition to the disadvantage of German farmers.