WRITTEN QUESTION P-1460/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Follow-up question concerning Annex IIa to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71.
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: free movement of workers, interinstitutional relations (EU), social security, social-security benefit, worker (EU)

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/73

Notifiers will then have to present full dossiers at a later stage. For wood preservatives and rodenticides the
deadline has been set at 28 March 2004, whereas for other product types the dates and priorities will be
fixed in the second Review Regulation, which the Commission is currently preparing. According to
Article 5(3) and 8 (3) and (4) of Regulation 1896/2000, Member States may indicate their interest to have
further active substances included in Annex I of the Directive and will then have to provide full dossiers
later. So far, no Member State has used these provisions.

The Commission is fully aware of the concerns regarding the pollution of the environment by arsenic,
chrome and other heavy metals. Several compounds of arsenic and chromium are on the various priority
lists established in the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the
evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances. The related risk assessments are ongoing and
once finalised will be submitted to the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(SCTEE) for peer-review. If deemed necessary, a recommendation for an appropriate strategy for limiting
the risks will then be adopted by the Commission, assisted by a Committee of representatives of the
Member States.

In the particular case of copper chromium arsenic (CCA) wood preservatives, the Commission is currently
preparing a revision of the restrictions already contained in Directive 76/769/EEC (2). Based on a specific
risk assessment mandated by the Commission and the opinion of the CSTEE on this assessment, the
Commission has drafted a new Directive, which further restricts the use of CCA to essential uses. This draft
had been submitted to a public consultation via internet (3). After an assessment of the responses received,
a new draft was presented for informal consultation to the Member States. Subsequently, on the basis of
the reactions from the Member States, a new draft will be elaborated and submitted for final adoption.
Furthermore, as regards the disposal of CCA-treated wood, this type of waste is classified as hazardous
waste,
the requirements of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
fulfil
therefore its disposal must
12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (4).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first phase of the programme referred to
in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the Council on biocidal products, OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(2) Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances
and preparations, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
(All relevant documents and replies to the consultation can be found at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/
chemicals/index.htm).

(3)

(4) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2003/C 52 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1460/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question concerning Annex IIa to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71

On 15 April 2002 I put a Written Question to the Commission concerning Annex IIa to Article 10a of
Regulation 1408/71 (1) (P-1119/02 (2)). Commissioner Diamantopolou answered that question on 8 May
2002. However, she failed to deal with all the points I raised, hence this follow-up question seeking, once
again, a comprehensive answer, not least to my third question, namely how the Secretary of State could
have been quoting from the review at that time.

In her answer to my question (P-1119/02), the Commissioner states that no formal talks have been held. Is
it possible that the Secretary of State could have learnt, in the course of informal talks, the Commission’s
view on the inclusion of Wajong in the annex referred to above?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 254.

C 52 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

In its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-1119/02 (1), the Commission indicated that
it was in contact with government experts in the various Member States, particularly the Netherlands, to
discuss the details of social security benefits listed in Annex IIa to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their
families moving within the Community (2).

These contacts are still under way and the Commission has not so far made any decision on the precise
content of the proposal which it plans to adopt. The conclusions which Mr Hoogervorst, Netherlands
Secretary of State for Social Affairs and Employment, may have drawn from departmental contacts on the
Commission’s position on this issue therefore seem premature.

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 254.
(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2003/C 52 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1482/02

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Council

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Madagascar

For the past two months Madagascar has been on the verge of civil war as it attempts to uphold the results
of the elections of 16 December 2001 which, despite extensive rigging by the dictator Ratsiraka, were won
by Ravalomanana.

Regrettably, until now the international community has not taken any action to firmly condemn the
serious events in Madagascar. The work of defending people’s rights and civilised values has in fact been
carried out in the country with great courage by missionaries, and in particular by Ursuline nuns who have
been present in Madagascar since 1960.

Given the above, will the Council explain what the European Union intends to do to restore democracy
and prevent a worsening of the situation in Madagascar?

In view of the important and delicate work done by the Ursuline sisters and the many European
missionaries in Madagascar, will the Council explain how the European Union intends to promote the
efforts of the religious to uphold democracy and defend the hard-hit populations in the areas affected by
the conflict?

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The EU has attentively observed recent developments in Madagascar following the Presidential elections.
Already on 17 April it issued its first declaration expressing concern over the deterioration of the situation
in Madagascar and condemning the outbreaks of violence and human rights violations.

In the light of the impasse the situation had reached, the EU noted with satisfaction the initiative taken by
the OAU and the UN with the assistance of Presidents Wade, Kerekou, Gbagbo and Chissano that led to
the agreement signed by Mr Ratsiraka and Mr Ravalomanana in Dakar on 18 April. Noting that the
implementation of the agreement was lagging and that violence on the island had increased, the EU again
on 8 May expressed regrets that certain provincial governors had declared the independence of their
provinces and it reiterated its conviction that the Dakar agreement remained the appropriate framework
for achieving a solution. In its decision of 9 July 2002, the African Union firmly stressed the urgent need
to organise elections and to define institutional arrangements enabling the transition to be ensured.