WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Enforced unemployment for professional drivers on account of refusal to extend their HGV driver's licence after a medical examination has revealed diabetes.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accident prevention, diabetes, driving licence, professional qualifications, road safety, transport staff

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/143

The relevant scientific committees keep safety assessments under review and take account of any new data.

3.
The conclusions of the scientific risk assessments referred to in the answer to question 1 above, give
no reason to believe that food produced from T25 maize or the use of T25 in animal feed would have any
adverse effects on human or animal health.

4.
Directive 90/220/EEC was recently revised and will be replaced by Directive 2001/18/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council on 17 October 2002. In accordance with this Directive, consents granted
for the placing on the market of GMOs under Directive 90/220/EEC have to be renewed by 17 October
2006. This includes a re-evaluation of the risk assessment.

As explained above, the risk assessments of T25 maize and food produced from T25 maize have
5.
been carried out in accordance with the procedures for granting approvals under Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.
(3) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Enforced unemployment for professional drivers on account of refusal to extend their HGV driver’s

licence after a medical examination has revealed diabetes

1.
Is the Commission aware that some professional drivers are unable to extend their HGV licences
because a medical examination has revealed them to be suffering from diabetes, and that an eye complaint,
retinopathy,
is diagnosed, as a result of which they are deemed unable to continue to exercise their
profession because they are not free of complications, despite the fact that their eyesight is perfectly
adequate?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that in practice professional drivers who have diabetes are banned
from driving, and may be dismissed by their employer because they no longer meet the conditions for
their occupation? On what grounds does this happen?

Are the rules in this field the same throughout the EU, or do they differ between Member States? Is it

3.
right if, in such cases, European rules are invoked when rejecting driving licence applications?

4.
If in practice drivers with diabetes are banned from working even though ophthalmologists consider
their eyesight to be perfectly adequate, does this ban increase road safety to such an extent as to justify
their enforced unemployment and the need to retrain them for a different occupation?

5.
In view of the growing separation of types of road-user, the introduction of mirrors on HGVs which
eliminate blind spots, and the restrictions on the driving hours of HGV drivers, is it now possible for
drivers who would once have been seen as a risk factor on account of their medical condition to return to
work?

Is the Commission preparing initiatives to protect such drivers against the existing possibility of

6.
enforced unemployment for no compelling reason, or will the Commission do so?

C 301 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

1. to 3.
The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the answers frequently
given by the Commission on this subject since the Council’s adoption of Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July
1991 on driving licences (1) and,
in particular, to the answers to written questions E-1462/01 from
Mrs Kauppi (2) and E-1295/00 from Mr Davies (3).

Annex III of that Directive established the ‘minimum standards of physical and mental fitness
4. and 5.
for driving a power-driven vehicle’. These standards are based on expert opinions. The standard in question
clearly indicates that it is not possible to issue or renew public service vehicle or heavy goods vehicle
licences for drivers diagnosed with retinopathy in addition to diabetes. This restrictive approach is justified
by the risks of blackout due to diabetes compounded by the potential total or partial vision loss due to
retinopathy. The risk is not reduced by fitting mirrors to eliminate blind spots and restricting driving times
and such measures do not justify relaxing the standard.

6.
The Commission does not at present intend to introduce any initiatives on the subject given the very
real risks to other road users. It does, however, commission regular studies regarding physical fitness and,
in the Committee on the driving licence, regularly consults experts so that it is constantly updated on
pertinent scientific and technical progress.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.
(3) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1432/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Debate surrounding Commissioner Loyola de Palacio’s statements on nuclear energy

Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has recently made statements in favour of resuming the construction of
nuclear power stations in the EU, on the grounds that this type of energy is necessary if the Kyoto
Agreement on greenhouse gas emissions is to be complied with, disregarding both the dangers involved in
the use of nuclear energy and the as yet unresolved and extremely grave environmental and economic
problems surrounding the stockage of nuclear waste. Commissioner Margot Wallström has since adopted
the opposite position to her colleague, advocating a future based on clean energy and renewable energies.
What is the Commission’s position in this matter?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The Commission’s position on nuclear energy is clearly stated in the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a
European strategy for the security of energy supply’ (1).

Any statement by a Member of the Commission must therefore be interpreted only in the light of this
document.

The Honorary Member
answers given by the Commission to
Questions H-0287/02 from Mrs Sornosa Martínez (2) and P-1354/02 from Mr Carnero González (3) on
the same subject.

requested to refer

to the

is

(1) COM(2000) 769 final.
(2) Written answer of 14.5.2002.
(3) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 192.