WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/02 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.
Date: 2002-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, genetically modified organism, national implementing measure, patent law, right to justice

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/163

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2002)

The rules concerning the total authorised weight for road vehicles derive from Council Directive 96/53/EC
laying down for certain road vehicles circulating within the Community the maximum authorised
dimensions in national and international traffic and the maximum authorised weights in international
traffic (1), and the definition of ‘combined transport’ which appears in Council Directive 92/106/EEC of
7 December 1992 laying down the common rules for certain combined transport operations between
Member States (2). This definition explains why, when a seaport is involved, the combined transport
concept entails compliance with two conditions at the same time: the sea leg must be in excess of 100 km
as the crow flies and the (initial and final) road legs cannot exceed 150 km as the crow flies.

To benefit from the 44 tonne derogation under the Community provisions, an intermodal sea/road
transport operation must therefore simultaneously meet the following three conditions:

/ sea leg of over 100 km as the crow flies;

/ initial and final road leg within a maximum radius of 150 km, as the crow flies;

/ use of a 40 foot ISO container and a three-axle motor vehicle with semi trailer with two or three
axles, complying with the maximum authorised weight per axle (as indicated in Annex I (point 3) of
Directive 96/53/EC).

All the Member States have incorporated the two directives into their national law. According to the
information available to the Commission, France is correctly applying the rules laid down by Community
law, and there is therefore no reason for the Commission to intervene.

However, pursuant to Directive 96/53/EC, Member States may allow the movement on their territory of
vehicles with weights and dimensions departing from those provided for in the directive. Accordingly,
certain Member States have gone beyond the measures required on this particular point. However, the
measures in question cannot be laid down by the Commission.

the Commission proposed (3) amending Directives 92/106/EEC and 96/53/EC.
On 10 July 1998,
Parliament has adopted amendments deleting two very importance measures, namely the permanent
derogation from banning week-end movements and the generalisation of the authorisation of 44 tonnes
for any type of combined transport. Accordingly, the proposal would become much less worthwhile. The
Commission therefore withdrew it (4).

Although the 44 tonne rule may be of interest for certain types of intermodal transport, it is difficult to
measure its positive impact on the development of combined transport. Accordingly, it seems a matter of
priority to address the structural problems slowing down the development of intermodal transport. The
Marco Polo programme, and in particular its catalysing actions and those intended to build shared
knowledge should make it possible to determine the best ways of achieving this objective.

(1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(2) OJ L 368, 17.12.1992.
(3) Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 92/106/EEC and proposal for a Council Directive amending

Directive 96/53/EC, OJ C 261, 19.8.1998.

(4) COM(2001) 763 final.

(2002/C 205 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions

In 1997, Parliament approved Directive 98/44/EC (1) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.
In 2001, the Court of Justice in Luxembourg dismissed an application by the Netherlands Government for

C 205 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

annulment of this directive (case C-377/98). Thus the Netherlands must comply with its obligations with
regard to European legislation. However, the Dutch legislature (the Lower House of Parliament) has so far
refused to transpose the directive into national law, despite the fact that this should have been done by
30 July 2000. This is very detrimental to existing and new biotech companies in the Netherlands and
Europe at large.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2. What measures will the Commission take to hold the Netherlands to its European obligations,
particularly its duty to swiftly and completely transpose the above directive?

3. Which other Member States have not yet transposed the directive?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2002)

The Honourable Member has drawn the Commission’s attention to the difficulties encountered in some
Member States in implementing Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

1.
The Commission is fully aware of the fact that Directive 98/44/EC has not been implemented in
some Member States. The Commission would like to echo the comments made by the Honourable
Member regarding the binding obligation upon Member States to immediately transpose this Directive,
especially since the deadline for transposition has long since expired. In addition, any ambiguity there may
have been about the legality of this Directive has been dispelled following the Court of Justice’s rejection
on 9 October 2001 of the application for the annulment of the Directive.

2.
The Commission would like to point out that a letter of formal notice was sent on 30 November
2000 to those Member States which had not, at that time, transposed Directive 98/44/EC. It should be
noted that the next stage in this procedure is to send a reasoned opinion on account of a failure to notify
national transposition measures.

To date, five Member States have transposed Directive 98/44/EC: Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Finland

3.
and the United Kingdom.

(2002/C 205 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0551/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Transmission of livestock diseases from potential sources of infection in new Member States to

livestock in the present Member States

1.
Can the Commission confirm the belief expressed by farmers’ organisations that such familiar
livestock diseases as swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease are more widespread in the candidate
countries on the continent than in the present Member States, so that the risk of healthy livestock
becoming infected is also greater?

2.
Does the Commission, like these organisations, fear that the elimination of obstacles to transport of
and trade in meat and live animals at the existing eastern external border of the EU will result in a greater
spread of animal diseases in the existing Member States?

3.
Does the Commission anticipate a big increase in sales of livestock and meat from the new eastern
Member States, where production costs are low because of their low wages? What percentage of the
existing market are they likely to acquire?