WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Maria Martens (PPE-DE), Karla Peijs (PPE-DE)and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Question further to question E-2069/01 concerning free movement of captains.
Date: 2002-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU Member State, crew, maritime transport, nationality, public safety, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, ship's flag

C 229 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Firstly, it should be mentioned that, in relation to biungulates (bovines, pigs, sheep and goats) Community
animal health rules only authorize the importation into the Community of live breeding pigs from Chile.
Registered horses intended for competitions are also allowed from certain South American countries.
Statistical data indicate that no pigs were imported in 2001.

In relation to welfare conditions, Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection
of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (1), as amended by
Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (2), provides a set of rules on the protection of animals during
transport. The Commission has undertaken to present in the near future a legislative proposal to improve
the welfare conditions of the transported animals.

The present rules foresee that if during an import check at the entrance of the territory of the Community
it is discovered that animals are not fit to continue their planned journey, that Community journey times
are being exceeded or that the means of transport is unsuitable, action can be taken under existing
Community provisions.

However, imposing Community welfare requirements generally on the pre-import leg of the journey may
not be compatible with regards to the Community’s international obligations in general and the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) obligations in particular.

Nevertheless, to raise the level of protection of the animals internationally, the Commission is committed
to several
initiatives, such as the negotiation on behalf of the Community of the revised European
Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, the support of the activity of the
OIE (3) in the field of animal welfare and the position expressed in WTO in animal welfare and agriculture.
The possibilities for WTO compatible bilateral agreements concerning animal welfare with certain third
countries will also be explored.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(3) Office international des Epizooties, the world organisation for animal health.

(2002/C 229 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1022/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Maria Martens (PPE-DE), Karla Peijs (PPE-DE)
and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Question further to question E-2069/01 concerning free movement of captains

In its reply to Written Question E-2069/01 (1), the Commission referred to its answer to Written Question
E-3440/97 (2) by Mrs Van Dijk for
information about nationality requirements for captains. The
Commission observes that captains and first mates are employed in the public service as referred to in
Article 48(4) (now Article 39(4)). According to the Commission, Member States may require such posts to
be reserved for their own nationals, which is justified by invoking Article 48(3) (public policy, public
security and public health).

1.
Has not this reasoning been superseded by case law, particularly the judgment of 31 May 2001,
Commission v. Italy (case C-283/99), point 25, and the judgment of 29 October 1998, Commission v.
Spain (C-114/97), points 41 and 42?

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/171

Does not the Commission agree that captains who are not employed in the public service cannot fall
2.
under Article 39(4), inter alia on the grounds that the Court uses the phrase ‘whatever the duties of the
employee’ (judgment in case C-283/99, Commission v. Italy)?

3.
A number of Member States do not impose any nationality requirements on captains, and evidently
do not have any problems with public policy or public security. Why should this be any different in
Member States which do impose such a requirement, particularly in fishing?

4.
Does the Commission agree that there are also no grounds for invoking public policy, public security
and public health (Article 39(3)) in this connection because the entry or residence of a captain in a
Member State need not in itself present any danger to public policy, public security and public health
(judgment C-114/97, Commission v. Spain)?

5.
Is the Commission aware that in a number of Member States there are serious shortages of captains,
so that the nationality requirement jeopardises both the Community’s labour market and its international
competitive position?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 177.
(2) OJ C 174, 8.6.1998, p. 57.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The exercise of public authority in connection with nationality restrictions set out by Member States to
certain professions has indeed been the subject of recent case-law of the Court of Justice (cases C-114/97
and C-293/99). The Commission would like to recall, however, that the Court did not in this case-law deal
with the specific question of nationality requirements for captains and first officers who must perform
special functions due to the special characteristics of maritime navigation.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the application of Community law on free movement in relation to
the nationality requirements to captains and first officers of ships is currently being examined by the Court
of justice in the pending Anave-case (C-405/01).

As this case is still ‘sub iudice’, the Commission would like to refrain from making any form of prediction
as to its possible outcome or more detailed remarks on the possible implications of this case law on
previously defended positions.

(2002/C 229 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1026/02

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 April 2002)

Subject: Discrimination arising from the introduction of local environmental legislation in four Swedish

cities

legislation. The legislation applies to 3,5 tonnes diesel-engined vehicles,

On 1 January 2002, four Swedish cities A Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg and Lund A have introduced
new environmental
including
foreign-registered vehicles. Vehicles with engines built to European standards do not fulfil the requirements
of the new environmental legislation. As a result, their use in the four cities referred to is subject to
restrictions. The owners of the vehicles are obliged to have fitted a filter which is available only in Sweden
and which would nevertheless oblige them to run their vehicles on a special diesel fuel. The result in
practice is that only local coaches and undertakings can drive and/or operate in these cities.

Does the European Commission take the view that the situation outlined above constitutes a breach of EC
Treaty rules, especially the provisions relating to fundamental freedoms?

What will the Commission do if it accepts that the situation outlined above constitutes a breach of EC
Treaty rules?