WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/02 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Dyke-strengthening projects in the district of Sliedrecht following further postponement of a decision and the Commission's reply to oral question.
Date: 2002-09-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, engineering structure, environmental impact, impact study, infringement procedure (EU), national law

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/247

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Like the Honourable Member,
the Commission is concerned about the far-reaching effects that the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act might have on Community companies which are listed in the United States, on the
foreign subsidiaries of United States companies and on Community auditors. The Commission under-
stands, however, that, through the implementing rules to be adopted by the United States’ Securities and
Exchange Commission, there could be room to grant certain exemptions for foreign accounting firms.
Concerning foreign issuers, the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission has only limited
exemptive authority; however there might be room for applying the implementing measures in a manner
compatible with foreign issuers’ home country laws and practices.

In the framework of existing arrangements based on co-operation between regulators, the Commission will
pursue its dialogue with the United States’ Securities and Exchange Commission at political and at
technical level with a view to ensuring as little duplication as possible in terms of corporate governance
and accounting requirements between the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Community law. It is not in the interest
of anyone that the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission proposes measures unilaterally
regulating foreign companies and audit firms unnecessarily.

(2003/C 28 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2622/02

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 September 2002)

Subject: Dyke-strengthening projects in the district of Sliedrecht following further postponement of a

decision and the Commission’s reply to oral question

In its reply of 3 September 2002 to my oral question H-0578/02 (1) concerning dyke sections in
Sliedrecht, the Commission does not give any plausible reason for the very slow processing of this case.

It merely repeats that ‘at present’
Netherlands to the Commission’s reasoned opinion of 26 July 2001.
Commission received this detailed reply as long ago as 11 October 2001.

it is still studying the detailed reply from the Government of the
the

I would point out

that

Is the Commission aware that this matter concerns decision-making on the strengthening of a dyke which
has already been postponed several times because of intervention by the Commission?

Is the Commission aware that any further delay in the decision-making on the dyke-strengthening could
result in a dangerous situation?

Is the Commission aware that the confidence of members of the public, who had been relying on active
intervention by the Commission, is proving seriously misplaced in view of the delay in dealing with this
matter?

(1) Written reply of 3.9.2002.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that its original concerns in this matter
impact
principally related to the adequacy of Dutch legislation on the need for an environmental
assessment of dyke projects pursuant to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). In the course of the ongoing
infringement procedure,
the Netherlands adopted new legislation in this area. According to the
Commission, this new legislation constitutes a more satisfactory basis for determining the need for an
environmental impact assessment for dyke projects.

C 28 E/248

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Commission is of the opinion that this legislative progress has to be taken into account in the specific
case of the Sliedrecht dykes. The Commission hopes to come to final conclusions regarding this specific
dyke project shortly.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1977, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 28 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform application of standards

Is the Commission aware that machinery certified in one Member State (e.g. Italy) as being in conformity
with CEN standard, and purchased on that basis by a company in another Member State (e.g. the UK),
sometimes fails inspections by the authorities in the Member State of purchase, who have a different
interpretation of CEN rules?

Does the Commission realise that, in such circumstances, the company in question has no recourse against
the manufacturer, as the latter points out that he has due certification that CEN standards have been met?

Has the Commission conducted any studies as to the uniform application of standards across the EU and
the problems that arise from different interpretations by various national authorities thereof?

Does the Commission have any suggestions as to what a company should do if it is victim of such a
situation as described above?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Machinery placed on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA) must comply with the essential
health and safety requirements of the Machinery Directive (1). Application of the technical specifications of
harmonised European standards remains voluntary. However, machinery manufactured according to these
specifications is, as a rule, presumed to comply with the requirements of the Directive covered by the
standards.

The Commission is particularly concerned to develop consistent application of the essential requirements.
Within the Working Group of the Machinery Directive, Member States and the Commission seek to reach
common interpretation. A group has also been set up to develop administrative co-operation between
national authorities in matters of market surveillance. For machinery subject to type-examination before
being placed on the market, the Notified Bodies concerned meet regularly to co-ordinate their activity and
formulate common answers to questions of interpretation of the Directive and of harmonised standards.

Member States have the duty to ensure that machinery placed on the market does not endanger the health
or safety of persons and, to this end, they carry out appropriate surveillance of machinery placed on the
market. It may occur that, despite application of a harmonised European standard, the market surveillance
authorities of a Member State find that a given model of machinery is not in compliance with the
requirements of the Directive and is liable to endanger the health and safety of persons.

In practice, the matter is often raised with the manufacturer concerned and measures to bring the
machinery into conformity are agreed between the manufacturer and the national authorities. This should
enable a company which has purchased items of such machinery to have it brought into conformity by
the manufacturer.