WRITTEN QUESTION P-1986/02 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Export of spent nuclear fuel to Russia.
Date: 2002-07-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, export of waste, interpretation of the law, irradiated fuel, radioactive waste, waste management

C 301 E/256

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Can the Commission say:

1. whether there are examples of good practice in this field;

2. whether there is any Commission documentation or research on the subject;

3. whether it can express a general opinion on the issue?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 August 2002)

The Commission is aware that waiting time for health services causes concern in a number of Member
States. At this stage, however, it does not have data on waiting lists available. The new public health action
foresees the
programme which was recently adopted by the Parliament and the Council, however,
establishment of a comprehensive health information system which may provide a framework to pursue
some of the issues raised by the question.

Moreover, the Commission hopes that replies by the Member States to a recently issued questionnaire on
health and long-term care for the elderly will provide some insights into the problem and possibly yield
some indications on how it can be tackled.

(2002/C 301 E/276)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1986/02

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Export of spent nuclear fuel to Russia

In summer 2001 the Russian President Vladimir Putin approved new legislation allowing the import of
foreign spent nuclear fuel to Russia.

Under Council Directive 92/3/Euratom (1) of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of
1.
shipments of radioactive waste between Member States, into and out of the Community, Member States
are prohibited from exporting shipments of radioactive waste to third countries that do not have the
‘technical, legal or administrative resources’ to manage it safely. The assessment of whether this condition
is met is conducted by the relevant authorities in Member States.

How does the Commission plan to prevent conflicting interpretations by the Member States in regard to
‘technical, legal or administrative resources’ to manage spent nuclear fuel safely in Russia?

Most of the Member States are committed to similar rules concerning any shipment of spent nuclear fuel
under the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and Radioactive Waste, which entered
into force on 18 June 2001.

Prior to the EU-Russia Summit at the end of May 2002 in Moscow, the Russian Minister for Nuclear
2.
Energy, Alexander Rumyantchev, had indicated his intention to discuss with Commissioner Loyala de
Palacio Russia’s possibilities to import spent nuclear fuel from the EU, and in particular from Spain. Was
this topic brought up and did it lead to any follow-up measures?

(1) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992, p. 24.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/257

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2002)

The assessment of the technical, legal and administrative resources for the safe management of radioactive
wastes in a State of destination of a shipment of radioactive waste is undertaken by the competent
authorities in the State of origin. This would normally be done by comparing the level of the resources in
the State of destination with those in force in the State of origin.

Concerning Council Directive 92/3/Euratom, of 3 February 1992 on the supervision and control of
shipments of radioactive waste between Member States and into and out of the Community radioactive
waste is defined as being ‘waste’ for ‘any material which contains or is contaminated by radionuclides and
for which no use is foreseen’. Considering this definition, only those shipments of spent fuel for disposal
would fall within the scope of the Directive. In the past, there have been no shipments of spent fuel to
third countries for disposal.

The Commission is not aware of any conflicting interpretation about the assessment of the resources by
that different
the Member States when authorising shipments of radioactive waste.
interpretations appeared possible, the Commission would establish the criteria referred to in Article 11 of
Council Directive 92/3/Euratom for these assessments with the assistance of an advisory Committee
composed of representatives from Member States (Articles 19 and 20 of Directive 92/3/Euratom).

In the event

There will be a similar assessment carried out by Contracting Parties to the Joint Convention on the safety
of spent fuel management and the safely radioactive waste management before any spent fuel shipments
are made. However, under the Joint Convention both the State of origin and the State of destination must
undertake the assessment before authorising a shipment.

The issue of the import of spent nuclear fuel from the Community to the Russian Federation was not
raised by Nuclear Energy Minister Rumyantctev during his recent meeting with the Vice-President of the
Commission responsible for Transport and Energy.

(2002/C 301 E/277)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2017/02

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) and Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Application of Regulation 1612/68 in the case of top-up payments to an unemployed cross-border

worker

Is the Commission aware of the judgment of 21 March 2002 delivered by the court in s’ Hertogenbosch in
the case of Rita Lemmens-Lenaerts (Case 197850)? Ms Lemmens-Lenaerts lives in Belgium and was
employed as a cross-border worker in the Netherlands. She lost her job and, under Regulation (EEC)
1408/71 (1),
is entitled to Belgian unemployment benefit. On the basis of a collective employment
agreement (CEA) arrangement whereby the unemployment benefit is topped up to a percentage of the last
gross salary payment, her former employer makes a supplementary payment, but bases it on a notional
benefit paid in the Netherlands. Since the Belgian benefit is lower than the Netherlands one, there is a
difference between her income and that of unemployed colleagues living in the Netherlands.

Does the Commission also take the view that the question here is whether the CEA entitlement formulated
as a percentage of gross salary (being a social benefit pursuant to Article 7(2) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)
1612/68 (2)) must result in the same level of (gross) income for an unemployed border worker receiving a
benefit that must be paid in the country of residence (pursuant to Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EEC)
1408/71) as for colleagues resident in the country of employment?

Does the Commission not take the view that the Netherlands judge should also have referred to the case-
law relating to Regulations 1408/71 and 1612/68, namely the Meints judgment (C-57/96) and the
‘pension rights’ judgment (Commission/France C-35/97)?