WRITTEN QUESTION P-1354/02 by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission. Commission's position on the use of nuclear energy in the EU.
Date: 2002-05-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU publication, European Commissioner, energy policy, nuclear energy, public statement

C 277 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

The validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 was questioned in case C-20/96, Snares v
Adjudication Officer. The Court of Justice held in that case that the amendments introduced by Regulation
(EEC) No 1247/92 actually worked to protect the interests of migrant workers in accordance with
Article 51 (now Article 42) of the EC Treaty. This is because such a person can be entitled to these special
non-contributory benefits in the Member State of residence without having previously been subject to that
Member State’s social security system, and the Member State of residence will, in appropriate cases, have to
take into account periods of employment, residence and insurance completed in other Member States. The
Court therefore concluded that the Community legislator was entitled to enact Regulation (EEC) No
1247/92. This conclusion was confirmed by the Court in the Partridge case (C-297/96) at paragraph 29, in
the Jauch case (C-215/99) at paragraph 21 and in the Leclere case (C-43/99) at paragraph 32.

In the Snares judgements the Court of Justice, answering exclusively the question of the validity of
Community Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92, confirmed in principle the compatibility of such a derogation
from the principle of the exportability of social security benefits with the EC Treaty, in particular in the
case of benefits which are closely linked to a specific economic and social context. The conditions for the
entry of any particular benefit in Annex IIa, according to its characteristics under national
law, and
therefore the correctness in general of the entry of the benefits in the Annex, were not considered by the
Court. However, the Court has supplemented this case law by the judgements handed down in Jauch and
Leclere. In these judgements the Court held that the derogation in respect of exportability resulting from
the inclusion of certain benefits in Annex IIa is incompatible with the principle of free movement of
workers laid down in the EC Treaty, particularly where these were not special benefits but related to the
traditional areas of social security.

In the light of this jurisprudence, the Commission is currently examining whether the benefits listed in
Annex IIa always meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice to justify their non-exportability. This
examination concerns all the benefits in the Annex including the British disability living allowance. If
certain benefits do not satisfy those criteria, the Commission will propose to the Community legislator to
legislative
remove from Annex IIa those entries which it
amendments or even pursue infringement proceedings.

feels are no longer justified to present

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971), Regulation updated by Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2) See Article 4(2)a and Article 10(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of

30 April 1992, (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992).

(2002/C 277 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1354/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Commission’s position on the use of nuclear energy in the EU

In statements made at
the end of April 2002, Commissioner Loyola de Palacio publicly and
unambiguously advocated the use of nuclear energy in the EU with a view to enabling the Union to
meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. She thus confirmed her previous statements, which had
led the author of the present question to put an earlier question on 4 February 2002 (E-0133/02) (1). The
Commission’s remarkably brief answer, received on 2 April 2002, simply stated that the Commission’s
position on nuclear energy is set out in the Green Paper on energy supply of November 2000 and that the
like those of any other Commissioner, be
statements referred to in the questions concerned should,
understood in context. Despite this, press reports published today state that the Commissioner for the
environment, Mrs Margot Wallström, has expressed her opposition to Mrs de Palacio’s pro-nuclear views.
The author of this question obviously agrees with Mrs Wallström and, it may well be, with a majority of
public opinion.

Given these circumstances, can the Commission state whether its official position on nuclear energy is that
of Mrs Wallström or that of Mrs de Palacio?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 151.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/193

Answer given Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

As the Honourable Member has so rightly stated, the Commission’s position on nuclear energy remains
that which is clearly set out in the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of
energy supply’ (1).

Any statement made by a Member of the Commission must therefore be interpreted solely in the light of
that document.

The Honourable Member is requested to refer also to the reply given by the Commission during Question
Time at the Plenary Session of the Parliament in May 2002 (2) to Oral Question H-0287/02 on this very
subject.

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2) Written answer 14.5.2002.

(2002/C 277 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1360/02

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(14 May 2002)

Subject: Legislation on the manufacture and the placing on the market of drugs in the applicant countries

1. Which applicant countries have transposed into their legislation Council Directive 92/109/EEC (1) on
the manufacture and the placing on the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances?

2.

In which countries are improvements necessary?

3. Where exactly are the improvements necessary?

(1) OJ L 370, 19.12.1992, p. 76.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

In the framework of the pre-accession strategy, candidate countries are aligning their legislation to the
Community acquis. The Commission is following this process via the national programmes for the
Adoption of the Acquis (NPAA) from the candidate countries, the organisation of screening sessions of the
relevant acquis and the assessment of updated and detailed information on legislative developments in the
context of the negotiation process. For Turkey a process of legislative scrutiny is being implemented aimed
inter alia at identifying gaps in Turkish legislation with the acquis.

According to the available information, the candidate countries have adopted measures which either refer
specifically to control and monitoring the trade of substances that can be diverted to the manufacture of
illegal drugs, or address the issue under more general legislation. Details of the legal instruments concerned
are as follows: Poland adopted Law No 125 item 1367 on 6 September 2001. Hungary has recently
revised its regulations through Government decree No 272/2001 (.XII.21.) Korm. which entered into force
on 1 January 2002. Slovenia, adopted the Illicit Drug Precursors Act (Ur.l. RS, št. 94/2000) in 2000. In the
same years the Slovak Republic adopted Act No 268/2000 and Romania adopted Law No 143/2000.
Lithuania deals with the issues mainly through Law No VIII-1207 of 1 June 1999. Cyprus adopted the
Precursor Substances (Manufacture and Placing on the market) Regulation in 2001. Estonia has adopted
Government Regulation No 231 of 28 November 1997 on the procedure for handling of precursors.
Latvia controls the trade of these substances through a law of 1996, further implemented by various legal
orders. Other countries include the measures of control and monitoring of drug precursors not in a
specific legal act, but within the framework of a general law on illegal drugs. In the Czech Republic the
transposition of the Directive is included in the Act No 167/1998 Coll. on Dependency Producing
its Law on Control of Narcotic
Substances (amended in 1999). The situation in Bulgaria is similar: