WRITTEN QUESTION E-3106/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Serious environmental pollution in the Borska Rek valley in Serbia as a result of the unnecessary use of radioactive waste imported from EU countries in copper mining.
Date: 2002-10-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU environmental policy, EU relations, Serbia and Montenegro, carriage of goods, export monitoring, export of waste, nuclear safety, polluted area, radioactive pollution, radioactive waste

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/67

Are these exports from the EU area based on agreements between companies or between
4.
governments? Which bodies in the EU should have tried to prevent such consignments? Why did this
not happen?

5. Why did these consignments, which pose a threat to public health and the environment and were
intended to keep a criminal regime in power, continue after the fall of Milosevic in October 2000?

6. What is the Commission doing to bring this trade to an end as soon as possible?

(2003/C 161 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3106/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject: Serious environmental pollution in the Borska Rek valley in Serbia as a result of the unnecessary

use of radioactive waste imported from EU countries in copper mining

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Borska Rek river valley near the city of Bor in the east of Serbia, is
not only used to store huge mountains of industrial and household waste, as a result of which the river
water is black and no trees, shrubs or grass can grow within 10 metres of the river banks, but that it is
also where the radioactive waste that Serbia imports from EU countries ends up; trade unions estimate that
the average life expectancy of inhabitants in the vicinity of storage and processing, which is conspicuously
absent from page 53 of the statistical yearbook for the region, is 48 years of age?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the argument in favour of importing a concentrate contained in
radioactive waste is that radioactive material is useful for mining copper ore containing only 0,30 % of
copper and that some of this material is used by the mining company RTB established near Bor since
1902. However, this argument cannot be given credence because RTB is not mining the large quantities of
deeper high-grade ore that contains 3 % copper, probably because there would then no longer be any
justification for the profitable importation of radioactive concentrate?

3. Will the Commission be contacting the experts, Ajdacic and Bogdanovic, who earlier sounded the
alarm in connection with the risks to public health and the environment but were then threatened,
dismissed and robbed of their instruments, with a view to establishing the true nature and scale of the
problem?

4. What is the EU or its Member States doing to make good as far as possible the damage caused near
Bor and around the storage sites in Alexinac and Belgrade where radiation levels are high as a result of
exports from the EU area? What is being done to compensate survivors financially for the loss of their
family members?

Source: Rotterdams Dagblad of 10 October 2002.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3105/02 and E-3106/02
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

From the context it would seem that the origin of the radioactive waste stems from copper mining, which
may occasionally give rise to residues with enhanced concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides
materials (NORM). NORM materials have been regulated within the Euratom framework of basic safety
standards since 1996 (1).

In addition, the shipment of radioactive waste between Member States as well as into and out of the
Community is addressed by Council Directive 92/3/Euratom (2). This Directive has introduced a system for
the administrative supervision and control of such shipments.

C 161 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In conformity with Article 18 of this Directive, the Commission has prepared periodic reports (3) on the
application in the Member States of this Directive. These reports to the European Parliament, the Council
and the Economic and Social Committee are based on the information provided by Member States on the
implementation of the Directive and the situation regarding shipments within their respective territory.

As regards exports out of the Community, the authorisation procedure, the administrative supervision and
control by the competent authorities of the Member States of origin and the country of destination are laid
down in Articles 11 and 12 of the Directive.

No shipments of radioactive waste from Member States to Serbia have been reported to the Commission.

In the absence of precise indications as to the origin of the materials and of any notification of shipments
of radioactive waste to Serbia, the Commission cannot take any specific action at this moment.

However, the Commission has written to the Member States to obtain more information.

(1) Council Directive of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public

and workers against the dangers of ionizing radiation, OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 35, 12.2.1992.
(3) COM(2001) 270 final, COM(98) 778 final and COM(95) 192 final.

(2003/C 161 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3107/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2002)

Subject:

‘Suicide bomber’ Barbie

The 13 August 2002 issue of the Italian weekly ‘Panorama’ reported that the London-based artist Simon
Tyszko had produced a provocative ‘suicide bomber’ version of the famous Barbie doll, complete with
sticks of explosive around her waist, as is tragically the case with the real-life terrorists who carry out
suicide bombings in Israel. The proceeds from the sale of this morbid invention were to go, generously and
without a hint of hypocrisy, to Amnesty International.

Given the recent upsurge in international terrorism and the tragic increase in suicide bombings: would the
Commission not consider it appropriate to propose that the Council define as a Community offence any
act or statement which aims to directly or indirectly promote (cid:1) even via seemingly innocuous dolls (cid:1) the
legitimisation or glorification of terrorism?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (1), has recently complied with
the harmonisation of criminal law and the establishment of minimum rules relating to the constituent
elements and penalties in the field of terrorism, as required by the Amsterdam Treaty. Article 4.1 obliges
Member States to ensure that inciting or aiding or abetting an offence referred to in articles 1(1),2 and 3, is
made punishable and Article 5 ensures this behaviour is heavily punished. However, these rules only apply
when inciting or abetting refers to the serious acts covered by the Framework Decision which,
furthermore, require an specific terrorist intent.

At present, the Commission is not envisaging the definition of ‘new’ terrorist offences. It must be borne in
mind that the Union’s legislative action must respect the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.