WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Nitrates directive.
Date: 2002-09-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Azores, application of EU law, atlas, pollution from agricultural sources, report, water pollution

C 52 E/198

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

ensue for B2C on the one hand and ‘business to business’ (B2B) on the other, which will, moreover,
continue to be regulated at national level. For each segment of the B2C sector which would not be covered
by the framework directive, the principle of mutual recognition would also apply.

The Commission also makes it clear that the prospective framework directive would be a directive laying
down minimum requirements which the Member States could make more stringent.

How does the Commission intend to counteract this development which, from a business viewpoint and in
terms of the single market, is potentially detrimental? How will the framework directive contribute to
greater legal certainty and creating uniform terms of competition? From a commercial viewpoint, will the
proposed approach remove barriers in the internal market and make the legal situation clearer?

(1) COM(2002) 289 final.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2002)

The Commission set out in the Green Paper on Union Consumer Protection (1) ideas on the harmonisation
of national laws on fairness of commercial practices in the internal market. The follow-up Communication
‘A framework directive should bring about … maximum harmonisation [and] application of the
says,
principle of mutual recognition and control by the country of origin (internal market principles).’ It is
therefore not appropriate to say that a possible framework directive would only lay down minimum
requirements that the Member States could make more stringent.

Furthermore, the Commission’s position is underlined in part III of the annex to the Communication on
page 19 ‘The combination of an adequate level of harmonisation and the principles of mutual recognition
and country of origin (which should be enshrined in the framework directive) will have as a consequence
that divergent interpretations in jurisprudence at national level will not result in the fragmentation of the
internal market.’

The ideas for a possible framework directive would address the Honourable Member’s concerns that
legislation in this area increases legal certainty, creates uniform terms of competition and removes barriers
to trade in the internal market.

As regards the scope of a possible framework directive the Commission does not propose to cover all
business-to-business (B2B) issues as the need for such coverage has not been widely expressed in the
consultation following the Green Paper.

Finally, the Commission can confirm its intention to propose that the principle of mutual recognition be
applied in the area of fair commercial practices to B2C aspects not harmonised by a possible directive. The
purpose of the consultation is to seek views on the issues that require harmonisation and those that can be
dealt with in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition.

(1) COM(2001) 531 Final.

(2003/C 52 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2682/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 September 2002)

Subject: Nitrates directive

The Commission has produced an excellent, but very worrying, report on the implementation of Council
Directive 91/676/EEC (1) concerning the protection of waters against the pollution caused by nitrates from
agricultural sources (2).

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/199

However, the main maps are presented only in the English version of the report, and the far Western
Atlantic edge of Europe is cut off (cid:1) namely the Autonomous Region of the Azores, which is European not
only in law, but by virtue of geography.

Does the Commission intend to publish the other language versions with the maps in their entirety?

Does it intend to cover the European section of the Atlantic in Map I?

Does it intend to disseminate the report as broadly as the importance of the issue merits?

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.
(2) COM(2002) 407 final.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for his appreciation of the report on the implementation
of Directive 91/676/EEC, published this year and now being printed. It is true that the situation gives cause
for concern, but significant progress is beginning to be seen both in the water monitoring systems and in
the designation of vulnerable zones, the content of action programmes and the monitoring of their
application.

All the language versions of the report may indeed be consulted on the Commission’s internet server, but
the maps (which take up a lot of server space) have only been included in the English version. The Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities (Eur-OP) is including these maps in colour in the
other language versions of the paper edition of this report to be published by the end of 2002 in all the
languages of the Union.

As far the Azores are concerned, these islands feature in the general map of vulnerable zones (although no
vulnerable zone has as yet been officially designated in that area), but not in the maps monitoring changes
in water quality, since no data on such monitoring activities in the Azores was forwarded for the year
2000 in the report from Portugal.

(2003/C 52 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2693/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Subject: Uniform registration system for weapons

A good number of arms manufacturers have a system for identifying and registering the weapons they
produce. Usually serial numbers are put on one or more of the weapon’s components. Exchange of
information among the EU countries as to the method used is somewhat patchy. In addition, the markings
used at present can sometimes be removed very easily. Each of these factors adds weight to the call for a
simple, efficient and universally applicable method. The markings can be kept in a national register so that
the route taken by arms found in a conflict zone can subsequently be traced.

Will the Commission take steps to draw up appropriate legislation on uniform registration of weapons
within the EU? If not, why not?