WRITTEN QUESTION P-2926/02 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Repeated infringements of EU law by the Member States.
Date: 2002-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law, application of EU law, infringement of EU law, national implementing measure, powers of the institutions (EU)

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/29

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2002)

The Commission is of the opinion that effective arrangements against potential radiological hazards need
to be established and maintained in nuclear installations in order to protect individuals, society and the
environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation from such installations.

The safety of the high flux reactor (HFR) is ensured by operating the reactor in compliance with the
relevant safety rules and regulations under the supervision and control of the competent national safety
authorities. In agreement with the safety authorities, a number of postulated accidental scenarios involving
major and minor coolant leaks including breaks in the cooling water pipes are currently under analysis.
The Commission,
in full agreement with the national safety authorities, considers that the postulated
scenarios do not represent a hazard that would require the HFR to cease to operate.

(2003/C 222 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2906/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: The Galicia-Portugal and Galicia-France-central Europe high-speed rail links

Can the Commission provide information on the state of progress,
in terms of both planning and
construction, on the proposed high-speed rail lines which are to link the main cities of Galicia with each
other and Galicia as a whole with Oporto and Lisbon in Portugal and with the European heartland via the
Iberian ‘meseta’ and France, given that the bulk of construction work on these links is planned for the
present programming period 2000-2006?

What is the level of Community funding allocated to these projects?

What are the expected completion dates for the various stretches of the planned lines?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2003/C 222 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2926/02

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2002)

Subject: Repeated infringements of EU law by the Member States

In 1999 the level of implementation of EU law was 94,53 %. However, there is a deep gulf between formal
and actual implementation.

Violations of EU law take many forms. Particularly when the infringement is deliberate, the Commission
ought to intervene directly. One instance of delayed reaction is in the case of the illegal taxation imposed
by Finland on removal
lorries, against which the Commission has not taken any action pursuant to
Directive 83/183/EEC (1), even though I informed the Commission of it over two years ago. This is
something which EU citizens should not be expected to put up with.

C 222 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

In cases of manifest violations of EU law, the Commission should have the right to take a preliminary
decision requiring that the Member State comply with EU legislation. To dispute the Commission’s
decision, the Member State could take the matter to the Court of Justice. The Court of Justice would always
have a duty to treat the Commission’s preliminary request urgently, so that the Member States’
legal
certainty would not be infringed. In addition, the Court of Justice’s decision-making should be speeded up,
as was attempted to some extent in the rules adopted in 2000 at Nice.

Does the Commission consider that the implementation of EU law is currently too slow and

1.
unpredictable?

Does the Commission intend to propose to the next Intergovernmental Conference that it should be

2.
granted the right and duty to take preliminary decisions?

3.

If not, how does the Commission propose to intervene in this unsatisfactory situation?

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983, p. 64.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

1.
The information in the annual reports on monitoring the application of Community law, which the
Commission has been sending to Parliament for nineteen years, does not, in the Commission’s opinion,
give the impression that the implementation of Community legislation is slow and unpredictable, as the
Honourable Member claims.

2.
The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty laying
down the procedure whereby failure by a State to fulfil an obligation under that Treaty was recorded in a
reasoned Commission decision against which the State in question could institute proceedings before the
Court of Justice. At this stage in the Convention’s deliberations, the Commission has not yet stated whether
it would be desirable to include a similar procedure in the new treaty.

Discussions prompted,

the
3.
Commission is attentive in pursuing its role as guardian of the treaties, including at the level of preventive
measures, which were not mentioned by the Honourable Member and which,
it is very
important to develop.

in particular, by the White Paper on Gouvernance (1)

indicate that

in its view,

(1) OJ C 287, 12.10.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 October 2002)

Subject: Dangers to whales posed by the use of high-power active sonar technology in naval exercises

Greenpeace recently accused NATO of causing the death of 16 whales in the Canaries during naval
exercises as a result of noise pollution from high-power active sonar systems. Many environmental NGOs,
such as the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC), consider that the spread of this technology
represents a huge threat to the survival of many marine species.

Will the Commission carry out investigations to determine where responsibility lies? What practical
measures will it take to deter the use of active sonar systems? Is it one of the Commission’s priorities, in
the context of protecting the marine environment, to instruct a special committee to carry out a study of
the impact of this technology on the survival of marine wildlife and examine possible alternatives? In which
parts of the Mediterranean is the danger particularly acute?