WRITTEN QUESTION E-3246/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The erection of mobile telephone masts.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, South West (England), health risk, mobile phone, regional planning, residential area, telecommunications equipment

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/179

The same article states that Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own
nationals an identity card (or passport), which shall state in particular the holder’s nationality. As identity
cards are a proof on nationality, Member States can only issue such documents to their own nationals.

Directive 68/360/EEC also provides that Member States shall grant a right of residence to migrant workers,
and that as proof of the right of residence, a residence card shall be issued (articles 3 & 4). The Member
State must issue a residence permit to a migrant worker upon production of the document with which he
entered the Member State (identity card or passport) and proof of employment. Article 5 of Directive 68/
360/EEC specifically provides that the completion of the formalities for obtaining a residence permit shall
not prevent the immediate beginning of employment.

It is in the above context, of obtaining a residence permit, that Member States may ask for the identity
card of a migrant worker. The Commission would recall that the Community rules on the free movement
of workers only apply to nationals of the Member States, and their family members. An identity card is
usually a proof of nationality, and in some circumstances it might not be unreasonable for an employer or
the national authorities of a Member State to ask for proof of nationality. The Commission is not aware of
any standard practice in any Member State of requiring a person to show an identity card before he can
start work. If such a practice did exist it would have to be proportionate and based on the circumstances
of each individual case.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2003/C 137 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3246/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: The erection of mobile telephone masts

Concern has been expressed by a number of my London constituents over plans to erect a mobile
telephone mast at the junction of Mead Way and Pickhurst Lane, Beckenham, which is a residential area.
The Bromley Local Authority representing the residents of the Borough opposed the development of an
8-metre ‘streetworks’ monopole mast with associated antenna, equipment cabinet and development
ancillary to the construction, but an appeal by the mobile telephone operator One 2 One against the
Bromley Local Authority’s decision was upheld by the U.K. Planning Inspectorate. Strong concerns on the
part of a number of local residents were expressed over the possible health effects of the proposed
development. These concerns centred on the proximity of the proposed development to houses, the
proximity of a nearby school and the fact that children walking to it would pass the site and be exposed to
electromagnetic high field strength. Similar concerns have been expressed in other parts of the United
Kingdom and in other parts of the European Union.

The Planning Inspector noted that although some countries have introduced legislation specifying that
telecommunications masts should be located at least 500 metres away from schools and residential areas,
U.K. Government Guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8: Telecommunications (PPG8) states that ‘if
a proposed mobile ’phone base station meets the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority
to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them’. The Inspector also notes that the
Guidance Note further advises that ‘local planning authorities should not impose a ban or moratorium on
new telecommunications development or insist on minimum distances between new telecommunications
development and existing development’.

Can the Commission indicate whether or not whether there is any European Union legislation governing
the erection of such masts and, if so, whether the U.K. guidelines are consistent with such legislation?
What discretion is afforded to Member States over the erection procedures, and are any of the countries
which insist on masts being located at least 500 metres away from schools and residential areas European
Union Member States?

C 137 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

Finally, what information does the Commission have regarding the potential dangers of mobile telephone
masts located in residential areas?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Regarding the potential existence of any European regulation governing the erection of mobile telephone
masts, the positioning of mobile telephone masts is a matter falling under the responsibility for local,
regional and State authorities.

Union legislation governing radio products, including mobile telephone masts (1), obliges manufacturers to
ensure that the products are safe when used for their intended purpose but national or local authorities
may impose additional restrictions on the use of radio products, for instance, by prescribing minimum
distances from the public, so as to ensure that telephone masts are appropriately installed.

Regarding the potential dangers of mobile telephone masts, the Community has further provided guidance
on the safety levels to be respected by establishing a set of maximum exposure limits (2). The Scientific
Committee on Toxicology-Ecotoxicology and the Environment confirmed on 30 November 2001 that:
‘the additional information which has become available on carcinogenic and other non-thermal effects of
radio frequency and microwave radiation frequencies in the last years does not justify a revision of
exposure limits set by the Commission’.

The European Commission will continue to monitor the scientific evidence on this issue.

(1) Directive 1999/5/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and

telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity, OJ L 91, 7.4.1999.

(2) Council Recommendation 1999/519/EEC.

(2003/C 137 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3248/02

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Emergency triggered by volcanic activity on Etna

For some weeks now, Mount Etna, the highest volcano in Europe, has been erupting with a violence not
seen for years.

The inhabitants of the towns and villages close to the volcano have therefore had to reconcile themselves
to living in a state of continuous alarm. The magma flows that well up, often unexpectedly, out of the
slopes of the mountain, have even licked population centres such as the town of Linguaglossa, and have
already razed 400 hectares of Sicily’s most important pine forest and the ski resort of Piano Provenanza,
which is internationally renowned as a site for alpine and cross-country skiing.

This emergency is having significant repercussions on the economy of the area, in that it is impacting on
key industries such as agriculture and tourism and exacerbating an already precarious situation.

In the light of the above, and considering that 2002 is the International Year of the Mountain, can and will
the Commission adopt emergency measures to help alleviate the damage to the economy and also to the
environment thus inflicted on the populations of Catania and neighbouring villages?