WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/02 by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transport of mortal remains within the European Communities.
Date: 2002-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, approximation of laws, case-law (EU), citizens' Europe, customs formalities, death, international convention, intra-EU transport, simplification of formalities

C 309 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The training of enforcement officers is in the first place a task of the Member States. Nevertheless, the
Commission will consider the possibility of supporting a communication project to promote knowledge
and understanding of the new equipment amongst its users. The project could focus on an information
campaign directed at enforcement officers, as well as drivers and the management of undertakings.

(1) Commission Regulation adapting for the seventh time to technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85

of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.

(2002/C 309 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1573/02

by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Transport of mortal remains within the European Communities

The transport of the mortal remains of persons who have died in a country other than their country of
origin is at present governed by the 1937 Berlin Agreements and the Strasbourg Convention drawn up in
1973 by the Council of Europe. These ‘pre-single market rules’ create unnecessary problems for the next-
of-kin and also do not appear very appropriate. Not only do they assume the existence of border controls
and fail to take into account the establishment of a European Economic Area, but they also entail
considerable costs attributable to the lack of standardised formalities and to the obligatory use of products
(zinc-lined coffins).

It is difficult to understand why mortal remains can be transported from Vienna to Bregenz (510 km)
without a zinc-lined coffin whilst such a coffin is required for a transfer from Salzburg to Freilassing
(10 km). There are no compelling technical arguments here on the grounds of hygiene or safety.

Under these circumstances,
is it possible for the Commission to draw up corresponding legislative
proposals on uniform rules for the transport of mortal remains from one country to another within
Europe, so that, in future, the cross-border transport of mortal remains is not more difficult than transport
within a Member State? Do specific plans already exist?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 July 2002)

The Commission refers to its joint reply to recent Written Questions E-0923/02 by Mrs Raschhofer,
E-0935/02 by Mr Rübig, E-1122/02 by Mr Bösch and E-1133/02 by Mr Marínos (1). For convenience, the
Commission’s position is set out below.

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another
Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the
family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary
questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised
difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an
overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community
policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would
be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing
the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937, No
4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council of
it should be recalled that Member States which
Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event,

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/139

regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice,
apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds
must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not
envisage any specific initiative for the moment.

(1) See page 59.

(2002/C 309 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 June 2002)

Subject: Redefining the CAP

Agriculture has always occupied a leading position in the European venture. Articles 38 and 39 of the
Treaty of Rome set out its objectives: to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers, to assure the
availability of supplies and to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices. However, current
constraints on agricultural policy leave practically no margin of manoeuvre for farmers.

Successive reforms have reduced the effectiveness of market management tools. They have emphasised
direct aids, without ensuring that these form a safety net for agricultural incomes.

Against this background, how does the Commission intend to redefine the objectives of the CAP while
distinguishing between those that concern management of agricultural markets and those that are part of
policy on farmers’ incomes?

Could the Commission also list objectives and tools in the areas of regional development and agri-
environmental constraints?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

In successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, market management measures have increasingly
focused on stabilising agricultural markets, while the income stabilisation role has been taken by direct
payments.

The Commission is of the view that the objectives for the common agricultural policy defined in the
Agenda 2000 reform meet the needs and expectations of European Society. These objectives give concrete
form to a European Model of Agriculture in the years ahead involving more market orientation and
increased competitiveness, food safety and quality, stabilisation of agricultural
integration of
environmental concerns into agricultural policy, the development of the rural areas, simplification, and
strengthened decentralisation.

incomes,

these objectives. As regards market
However, policy instruments could be adjusted to better meet
management there should be greater focus on the safety net role of intervention. For direct payments, it is
necessary to examine how direct payments could play a more effective role in stabilising agricultural,
particularly as regards increasing the margin for manoeuvre for farmers.

In the field of agri-environment, more could be done to achieve the objective of integrating environmental
concerns with the tools of agri-environmental programmes and cross-compliance. The objective of a
balanced territorial development of rural areas could be better achieved through a reinforcing the second
pillar of the common agricultural policy, rural development.