WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/03 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Enhanced legal cooperation.
Date: 2003-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, EU national, Schengen Agreement, Spain, agreement (EU), criminal law, homicide, imprisonment, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/119

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

legislation that stipulates the in-use standards that vehicles should
As the question correctly identifies,
attain before they can circulate within the Union is governed by Directive 96/96/EC of 20 December 1996
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicle
and their trailers (1). The Community’s Roadworthiness policy was framed over twenty-five years ago
(framework Directive 77/143/EEC of 29 December 1976 (2)) and originally only included trucks, buses,
taxis and ambulances within its scope. The original directive has been modified nine times and now
includes the inspection of passenger cars and light vans within its scope and also gives detailed
requirements for the testing of vehicle brakes and exhaust emissions.

The Commission decided to include passenger cars within the scope of the roadworthiness Directive
following a study made by the German vehicle inspection institute (TUV Rhineland) that estimated that
around 5 % of car crashes in the Community were the direct result of poor maintenance, mostly due to
poor brakes, tyres and lights. This study complemented other studies make by the Netherlands, Finland,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.

When the original roadworthiness Directive was expanded to include passenger car testing (Directive 91/
328/EEC of 21 June 1991 (3)) there was considerable discussion with Member States’ representatives within
the Council and within the Parliament on the scope and detail of that Directive. The final Directive that
requires cars to be inspected for their roadworthiness when they are four years old and then every two
years thereafter as a minimum, was a reduction in severity from the Commission’s original proposal which
was for testing once the car was three years old and then every subsequent year. In fact, the periodicity for
passenger car testing was made the same as for light commercial vehicles.

Over the past decade there has been significant advances in vehicle construction standards. Also, vehicles
are becoming more reliable and there may be potential for ‘the law of diminishing returns’ on what
traditional vehicle inspection can deliver. On the other hand, the reliability of these electronically based
systems once the vehicle has been in service for some time could compromise road safety and
environmental benefits.

The Commission is considering how roadworthiness testing requirements can evolve for the future.
To assist in its analysis, the Commission is to launch later in 2003 an ‘open tender’ study contract with the
title: ‘Assessment of future roadworthiness enforcement options for road vehicles taking full account of the
complexity of current vehicle safety and environmental control systems and their expected developments
for the future and other developments such as “mutual recognition” and the possibility of self certification
in some circumstances.’

(1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.1977.
(3) OJ L 178, 6.7.1991.

(2003/C 280 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1229/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Enhanced legal cooperation

Following a visit to a Danish national who is imprisoned in Spain, I now realise that European legal
cooperation leaves much to be desired. The person concerned has been in prison since 28 November
2001 accused of murder. On 14 January 2002, the accused’s lawyer sent an international court order to
the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to be forwarded in turn to the Danish Ministry of Justice, with a view to
summoning a witness for questioning. More than a year later, this international court order has still not
left the Spanish Ministry of Justice.

C 280 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

It is appalling that such sluggish procedures can delay and prolong legal cases. To date, no formal charge
has yet been made against the accused.

Will the Council therefore say what initiatives it intends to take to enhance European cooperation in this
field?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council cannot comment on matters that are pending before national authorities.

Provisions aiming at speeding up procedures of mutual co-operation in criminal matters between the
Member States of the European Union are contained in the 1990 Schengen Convention (Article 53) and in
the Convention adopted on 29 May 2000 on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the Member
States of the European Union (1).
in due time replace Article 53 of the 1990
Schengen Convention).

(Article 6, which will

The European Judicial Network,
introduced by Joint action 92/428/JHA of 29 June 1998, has, as its
mission to local judicial authorities of different Member States, to establish the most appropriate direct
contacts, and to enable local judicial authorities to prepare effective requests for judicial cooperation.

At present no further proposal or initiative has been submitted to the Council dealing with procedures as
described by the Honourable Parliamentarian in his question.

(1) OJ C 197, 12.7.2000.

(2003/C 280 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Methyldibromo glutaronitrile

I understand that
this preservative, methyldibromo glutaronitrile, used in cosmetics and toiletries,
is currently being investigated by the EU Scientific Committee on Cosmetic and Non-Food Products. Its
use is said to be associated with a rise in incidences of allergic contact dermatitis.

What investigations into this substance are being carried out by the Scientific Committee, and has it so far
reached any conclusions?

In the meantime has the Commission so far expressed any concerns about the use of this substance in
cosmetics, toiletries or other products, and if so with what response from industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane) is regulated in the Cosmetics Directive (1)
Annex VI, part 1, reference 36 and can therefore be used as a preservative up to a maximum
concentration of 0,1 % in the finished product. It shall not be used in cosmetic sunscreen products at a
concentration exceeding 0,025 %.

The Commission received a letter from the chairman of
the European Environmental and Contact
Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG) with data demonstrating the rising incidence of contact allergy to
methyldibromo glutaronitrile. These data were given to the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and
Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) for their expert review.