WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. Car safety.
Date: 2002-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, exchange of information, first aid, motor car, motor vehicle industry, new technology, road safety, transport accident, vehicle parts

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/93

In addition, as the Commission has stressed on several occasions, the complementary international fund
will be an acceptable alternative to the COPE Fund only if the maximum limit for compensation is at least
EUR 1 billion and if all the coastal Member States participate in it from the outset. Failing this it would be
essential to adopt the Commission’s initial proposal to create a COPE Fund, as amended after Parliament’s
approval.

As regards concrete action, the Commission has already begun to prepare a new set of legislative measures
to provide for financial penalties to be imposed on any person (i.e. not only the shipowner, but also the
owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person concerned) liable for causing pollution
through negligence. Steps will be proposed to counter deliberate discharges by ships, together with
measures aimed at collecting evidence and prosecuting the perpetrators. The Commission intends to make
it clear that such polluters cannot disclaim liability on the grounds that they are contributors to the IOPC
Fund.

(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 222 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Car safety

Roll-cages, airbags, safety-belt restraint systems and electronic control systems save dozens of lives every
year. However, there are drawbacks. According to the rescue services, firemen are forced to proceed very
carefully in their efforts to free injured people from wrecked cars, given that sensors activating airbags and
safety-belt restraint systems may be situated throughout the bodywork. This leads to delays in the freeing
of accident victims. Fire brigades are urging all automobile manufacturers to provide information for each
of their models detailing how airbag systems can be disabled and the sections of bodywork rescue workers
should focus on when using hydraulic cutters. The rescue services would then simply have to enter the
type of car involved in an accident into their computer in order to ascertain how victims can be freed
most effectively. The rescue services are complaining that Volvo is the only automobile manufacturer to
have responded positively to this request for information.

Is the Commission aware of the problem that it is becoming ever more difficult to free trapped accident
victims quickly?

What view does the Commission take of the call made by the rescue services?

Is the Commission aware that automobile manufacturers seem reluctant to answer the question put by the
rescue services?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission has not been informed of the specific problems which seem to arise during operations to
free accident victims from vehicles fitted with automatic-release restraint or protection systems, such as
airbags. The Commission is aware that more and more cars come fitted with such systems for the better
protection of their occupants against frontal and side impacts. It should be made clear that such equipment
is neither compulsory under Community legislation nor regulated by it. Logically, however, it must be
recognised that in situ operations to free accident victims when such systems are fitted can pose specific
risks if these are carried out without precautions being taken.

Given that the organisation of emergency services is the responsibility of the Member States and that there
are huge variations between different makes of car, the Commission has always thought it preferable to
leave the Member States in charge of taking the appropriate measures. It is, however, prepared to examine
the whole issue, although it would like to have more detailed information on the practical problems which
seem to arise during actions to free accident victims.

C 222 E/94

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The Commission has no knowledge of automobile manufacturers being unwilling to provide useful
information to the emergency services. As an initial response, it feels that it is up to the different national
legal systems to oblige manufacturers to provide appropriate documentation and to initiate any legal
the
proceedings.
the Commission would point out
Community legislation on end-of-life vehicles, which has been in force since April 2002 (1),
is that
manufacturers and producers of components should provide information on dismantling vehicles placed
on the market; such information could, if necessary, be made available to the emergency services.

the provisions of

In this respect,

that one of

(1) Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles

(cid:1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.

(2003/C 222 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3612/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Human rights clause

In connection with the preparations for Parliament’s 2002 report on human rights in the world, I should
like to ask the following questions:

1.

Since the 1990s, the European Union has incorporated a human rights clause in bilateral trade and
cooperation agreements with third countries. Can the Council give details of agreements of that kind
which have been suspended during the period since 1990 and state the reasons why decisions were
taken to suspend agreements?

2. Can the Council give details of the arrangements for discussing Parliament’s human rights resolutions
in the General Affairs Council: at which meetings were which subjects dealt with and with what
outcome?

3. Can the Council give details of attendance by Council representatives when Parliament debated human
rights issues in plenary over the period since April 2002? At what level was the Council represented
and how was information passed on to the Council of Ministers?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The EU has included human rights as an ‘essential element’ in trade and cooperation agreements with
1.
third countries since 1995. Such clauses stipulate that respect
for fundamental human rights and
democratic principles underpins the internal and external policies of the Parties and constitutes an
‘essential element’ of the agreement. In the event of a breach, the agreement may be suspended. Before
1995 respect for human rights was often mentioned explicitly in for instance the preamble of agreements,
but without constituting an essential element.

As of today, no agreement containing a human rights ‘essential element’ clause has been suspended.
However, where the EU considered that a partner country had violated the essential elements of the
agreement, certain provisions of the agreement have been suspended. This was for instance the case for the
financial provisions under the Cotonou Agreement with regard to Zimbabwe (2002), Comoros (2000),
Cote d’Ivoire (2000), Fiji (2000), Haiti (2000) and Liberia (2001). In other cases, the signing of cooperation
agreements was delayed because of human rights concerns, for instance with Croatia (1995), Pakistan
(1999), Algeria (1998) and Russia (1995).