WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/03 by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: derogation from EU law, driving period, road safety, road transport, traffic regulations, transport of animals, transport regulations

C 242 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

In line with the Council’s conclusions, the Commission has therefore proposed banning the carriage of
heavy oil products by single hull oil tankers of more than 600 tonnes deadweight. The Commission’s
proposal (amendment of Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (3)) is currently before the Council and Parliament.

(1) Oral answer of 17.12.2002.
(2) COM(2003) 92 final.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the
accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94 (cid:1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0311/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport

Is the Commission aware that, owing to foot-and-mouth disease, local markets for live animals have almost
collapsed over the last few years and that animal breeders therefore bringing the animals directly to their
customers and that, as a result, the derogation provided for in Article 13, paragraph 1 (e) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation
relating to road transport, as interpreted literally, applies increasingly rarely in practice? Does it consider
that the article in question may also be applied to the transportation of live animals from farms directly to
customers instead of to local markets?

In the case in question a farm which has specialised in pig-breeding regularly transports live animals with
its own vehicle issued with an agricultural permit. The driver was recently told during traffic controls that
the vehicle had to be fitted with recording equipment (a tachograph) except in certain exceptional cases.
The above Regulation was cited as the justification for this. No other exceptions apart from that provided
for in Article 13, paragraph 1(e), of the Regulation applied to the present case. Article 13, paragraph 1(e)
provides that ‘vehicles used for carrying live animals from farms to the local markets’ may be exempted
from the requirement to fit recording equipment. Through the collapse of local markets, animals have to
be transported directly from breeding to fattening farms. This provision should therefore also apply to the
transportation of animals directly between farms and not only through the intermediary of local markets.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The Commission can confirm that the current Article 13(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of
20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport cannot be
used to exempt the direct transport of live animals from farms to clients. Given the road safety purpose of
the Regulation, the exemptions should in any case be interpreted restrictively.

The proposal submitted to the Parliament and to the Council to amend the above mentioned Regulation (1)
indeed recognizes the fact that this exemption is an anomaly and has therefore proposed its deletion.
A more general derogation is foreseen for vehicles used amongst others by agricultural and farming
undertakings in the new Article 13(1)(b) as long as they carry their goods within a 50-kilometer radius
from their base. This would enable direct short distance deliveries. Longer distances would fall within the

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/119

Regulation’s driving time and rest period rules, which are monitored by a tachograph installed within the
vehicle and can be checked at the roadside and indeed on the premises by the enforcement authorities.

(1) OJ C 51, 26.2.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project

What criteria have been followed to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues
irrigation project? Is the defined exclusion zone the sole habitat for the steppe fauna which is to be
protected? Could the exclusion zone not be distributed in a less concentrated and more balanced way?

Is the Commission sure that these zones have been determined using exclusively scientific, and in
particular ecological criteria? Is the Commission sure that these zones have not been determined on the
basis of political criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

It is for the Spanish authorities alone to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues
irrigation project. Nonetheless, as this project could affect the conservation of several bird species referred
to in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC (1), the Commission will ensure that the provisions of that Directive
and of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) are complied with in this particular case.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (cid:1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (cid:1)

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 242 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Procedure for awarding contracts for projects financed by ISPA

Is it true that the procedure used for assessing tenders when awarding contracts for projects cofinanced by
ISPA and the EBRD is the one laid down by the latter institution, despite the fact that the EBRD only
finances a small proportion of each project?

How can the Commission ensure adequate supervision of the awarding of such contracts in the candidate
countries (and especially Poland and Romania, where this type of situation has already arisen), bearing in
mind that the EBRD procedures are deemed less restrictive and transparent than those which ISPA applies
to the other projects it finances?

Why does the Commission not apply its own assessment and selection procedures, which are subject to
the control of other Community institutions? Why does it elect to follow the procedures of third party
institutions?