WRITTEN QUESTION E-3153/02 by Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE), Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) and Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Cross border PCB contamination.
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Flanders (Belgium), France, administration of the Institutions, application of EU law, chemical pollution, decontamination, pollution of waterways, transfrontier pollution

C 192 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

The Commission notes that, according to the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, the
5.
fact that the return of a failed asylum seeker is impossible, does not imply an obligation to grant a
residence permit. Furthermore,
in the Commission’s proposal on a Council Directive on minimum
standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as
persons who otherwise need international protection (3), it has been proposed to leave outside the scope of
the Directive the issue of the rights and benefits of persons whose return is impossible because of reasons
not linked to international protection grounds. Therefore, this is left to Member States discretion, in full
respect of national or international human rights obligations.

In the absence of Community law, the Commission is not competent to assess the compatibility of
6.
national legislation and practices with the provision of the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugee status. At
Union level, no policy proposal has been made which might result in rejection and removal of individuals
regardless of the circumstances which forced them to leave their countries of origin.

7.
The Honourable Member is advised to refer to all the legislative proposals tabled on the basis of
article 63 of the EC Treaty since 1999, the Commission Communications on asylum and return already
mentioned in previous points of the reply and to the last version of the scoreboard on the establishement
of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

(1) COM(2001) 710 final.
(2) COM(2002) 564 final.
(3) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3153/02

by Hélène Flautre (Verts/ALE), Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) and Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the
Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Cross border PCB contamination

Among the results of a large biomonitoring network, the Flemish Regional Government found dangerous
PCB values in the measurement points in Menin during the 2002 measurement campaign. The
biomonitoring project focuses on the most toxic forms of PCB, namely PCB 126.

The measurement points along the Leie, a local
river, show persistent high levels of PCB 126
contamination, with levels up to 45 pg TEQ per square metre and per day. The source of the PCB
contamination is currently not clear. The Flemish Government assumes that the origin lies on French
territory, as Menin lies next to the French border.

Although the Flemish Government informed the French Government in order to find a constructive joint
solution to this problem of trans-frontier pollution, this case shows that Directive 96/59/EG (1) on PCBs
and PCTs has not been properly implemented.

How many civil servants work within the European Commission’s DG Environment on the implemen-
tation of Directive 96/59/EG on PCBs and PCTs? Is the number of experts sufficient to monitor such
implementation?

Do France and Belgium supply the European Commission with sufficient data for a thorough monitoring
of the Directive referred to above? What is the situation in the other Member States?

Does the Commission provide aid in the event of cross-border contamination with PCBs and encourage
Member States to solve jointly problems such as these?

(1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 35.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/99

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The work on the implementation of Council Directive 96/59/ECC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal
of PCBs and PCTs is co-ordinated by two officials in the Directorate-General who, in addition to that
Directive, are also responsible for other Community environmental legislation. Furthermore, desk-officers
responsible for the implementation of Community environmental legislation in each Member State are
involved in the preparation and follow-up of infringement proceedings regarding this Directive as well as
the adequacy of available
other legislation.
resources the Commission would confirm that pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty implementation of
Community legislation is a priority for the Commission. Within its limited resources the Commission is
looking to reinforce staff devoted to implementation.

In answer to the Honourable Member’s question about

France and Belgium did not supply within the prescribed period all the information required under the
provisions of Directive 96/59/EC. France was condemned by the Court in 2002 and the Commission
decided in December 2002 to initiate a second round of
legal proceedings against France, under
Article 228 of the EC Treaty, for failing to comply with the Court ruling. Following a reasoned opinion,
Belgium submitted information, which is currently being examined in relation to the legal requirements.

In 2000, the Commission initiated infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty by
the sending of letters of formal notice to all 15 Member States for not submitting the information required
under the provisions of Directive 96/59/EC. Apart from France, also Spain, Italy and Luxembourg were
condemned by the Court in 2002. Cases are currently going on before the Court against Germany, Greece
and Portugal. The cases against the remaining Member States have either been closed or are currently
being examined.

Decontamination of sites is not among the actions, which are generally funded by the Commission.
Nevertheless, the Commission encourages and supports any co-operation between Member States to
exchange information and jointly prevent or if not possible solve these cross-border contamination
episodes.

(2003/C 192 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3159/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Application of the most effective methods of combating corporate fraud to companies operating

or listed inside and outside the EU

On what grounds did Commissioner Bolkestein object on behalf of

1.
the Commission to the
application of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act to European companies with a second listing on the New York
Stock Exchange or with subsidiaries operating in the USA? The Act in question requires businesses in the
USA to make it impossible to provide misleading financial data by imposing obligations on their senior
managers and subjecting them to independent supervision arrangements.

2.
Do the objections referred to in paragraph 1 mainly relate firstly to the requirement to set up an
independent board to oversee the supervisor and secondly to the ban on businesses extending loans to
their own directors? What is wrong with these requirements?

3. Why should it be regarded as a form of ‘extraterritorial rights’ to require businesses operating outside
the EU to comply with the rules for the prevention of corporate fraud which apply in the country where
they are operating or are listed on the stock exchange? Would it not be far truer to say that such rights
were enjoyed if businesses operating within a country’s territory were not subject to that country’s
domestic rules?