WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. Environment — transparency — clarity — public involvement — environmental policy and legislation.
Date: 2002-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, access to EU information, consolidation of EU law, database, environmental law, environmental policy

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/167

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention here to the fact that it has no power to
intervene to safeguard the archaeological heritage of the Member States outside the context of existing
programmes and initiatives.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 28 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1983/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Environment (cid:1) transparency (cid:1) clarity (cid:1) public involvement (cid:1) environmental policy and

legislation

The public has a right to have access to information and documents from the Union institutions, which
should operate in a more transparent fashion.

It is important that there should be further Community-level environmental protection measures and that
they should be harmonised.

Public involvement in the work of the Union institutions is important.

All appropriate measures should be taken to foster such involvement in an effective manner.

European environmental legislation is relatively fragmented, which makes it less clear to the public.

The Commission:

(cid:1) Does it think that a consolidated text on European environmental policy and legislation could help to
ensure more effective compliance with the principles of the public’s right of access, transparency and
involvement?

(cid:1) If not, why not, and does it think that the present institutional and regulatory framework for
environmental policy and legislation is compatible with effective compliance with the above-
mentioned principles?

(cid:1) If so, what steps will it take to make this a reality, and when and how does it think that this project

will produce a tangible impact?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that the public can access
several Community law databases, and at least one of them is free of charge (1). These databases give users
the tools they need to find the legislation they are looking for. They also allow the public to access
documents relating to the various stages of adoption of Community legislation (Commission proposal,
successive positions of Parliament and of the Council).

However, the Commission is aware that over the past 30 years Community environmental legislation has
developed in a pragmatic fashion, sometimes in response to immediate requirements and without
following an overall plan. This is also true of other sectors of Community law, such as food, veterinary law
and agricultural legislation, and of national environmental law in most of the Member States.

C 28 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

law would be a long-term project. The Member States
The codification of Community environmental
which have begun to do this have usually set up a specialist committee to draft a codified text; the work
normally takes several years.

Community environmental law has developed in such a way that a simple consolidation of texts would
probably not be enough, as it would be necessary to establish consistency between provisions which can
sometimes be divergent, fill
in any gaps, review the terminology and amend the substance of some
provisions. A private attempt to do this just in the waste sector produced a text of some 120 Articles of
Community law.

Despite all these difficulties, the Commission is willing to examine the Honourable Member’s proposal
more closely and will inform her of its conclusions.

(1) Eur-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/index.html; Celex: http://www.europa.eu.int/celex/htm/celex_fr.htm, provides

additional services and there is a charge for this reason.

(2003/C 28 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1985/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 July 2002)

Subject: Commission investigation into sugar cartel

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02 (1), by the author of the present question, Commissioner Monti stated
that the Commission had conducted an investigation, finishing in 2001, following which it had concluded
that there is no cartel in the sugar industry in the EU.

Can the Community provide copies of the relevant documents?

(1) Oral reply of 11.6.2002.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

In reply to Oral Question H-0401/02 by the Honourable Member during question time at Parliament’s
June 2002 part-session, the Commission stated that it had received a complaint at the end of 2000 and
had investigated the matter in the course of 2001.

The complainant claimed to have been the victim of a refusal to supply on the part of sugar producers
from a certain Member State. As such, the allegation did not concern a price agreement and/or market
sharing at European level.

The complainant subsequently withdrew his complaint and, given that the circumstances of the case did
not justify continuing the investigation on an ipso jure basis, the Commission decided to regard the matter
as closed. In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to provide the documents requested by the
Honourable Member.

(2003/C 28 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1994/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Guaranteeing legal security for farmers in the light of ever-changing agricultural legislation

EU legislation in the agricultural sector by nature changes all the time. The amendments and adjustments
make the acts more difficult to enforce. Given the continual changes, local authorities do not dare to take