WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Incorrect transposition into national law of Directive 2002/49/EC.
Date: 2003-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, environmental policy, evaluation method, government bill, national implementing measure, noise pollution, noise protection

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/709

Since 2002, the Union approach has been adjusted to further accommodate development concerns:
in ongoing bilateral negotiations, the Commission is proposing that the trade partner, as an alternative to
the UPOV Convention, could equally implement some other adequate and effective sui generis system of
protection of plant varieties, in compliance with Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.

In the Commission’s assessment the UPOV Convention (in both its 1978 and 1991 versions) offers a
protection regime much more flexible than patent protection and therefore better suited to the specifities
of plant varieties (as a matter of fact, the Convention serves as a model for Community and national
legislation in several Member States). Therefore, certain developing countries, e.g. Mexico, Brazil and
Argentina, have adhered to the UPOV Convention, without having previously taken any such commitment
in a bilateral agreement with the Union.

As regards farmers’ exceptions, the UPOV Convention provides for a ‘farmers’ privilege’, which permits
farmers to use for propagating purposes, on their own holdings, the product of the harvest which they
have obtained by planting, on their own holdings, the protected variety.

Moreover, the Convention states that breeders’ rights do not extend to acts done privately and for non-
in the view of the Commission, cover any act done by
commercial purposes: this exception does,
subsistence farmers (whose activities are, by definition,
‘non-commercial’) with regard to protected
varieties, including the exchange of seed. So, as far as subsistence farmers are concerned, the possibility to
provide for exceptions goes well beyond the ‘farmers’ privilege’.

Also, the Convention in many cases allows for the free breeding of new varieties on the basis of existing
varieties (be it by agro-business or by farmers).

Finally, adherence to the UPOV Convention does not prevent the establishment of additional protection
regimes for traditional farming practices, traditional knowledge or varieties which do not meet the criteria
set out in the UPOV Convention, as well as the protection of farmers’ rights as set out in the International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

Exemptions beyond those available under the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention could be conceived and
defended as being allowed under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement. It would, however, be wrong to
state that the UPOV Convention does not provide for a flexible system and for farmers’ exemptions.

As such, the 1991 UPOV Convention does provide for an effective and flexible sui generis system for the
protection of plant varieties though alternative models could be put in place, and would be consistent with
the TRIPs Agreement provided they offer effective protection.

(1)

IP/C/W/383.

(2004/C 78 E/0758)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1280/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Incorrect transposition into national law of Directive 2002/49/EC

The Spanish Government is in the process of transposing into national
relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise.

law Directive 2002/49/EC (1)

Although the deadline for transposition has been set at July 2004, the preliminary draft law drawn up by
the government has already sparked fierce controversy among sections of the public and ecologists, who
feel that the government’s draft law does not satisfy the expectations of the directive, especially with
reference to the following:

(cid:1) the distribution of responsibilities between the various parallel administrations in the field of
environmental noise is not sufficiently delineated, despite being an obligation under the Directive;

C 78 E/710

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) although the Directive provides for the adoption of three basic indicators for use in the noise maps
and other acoustic indexes that can be defined by the Member States, the preliminary draft law
proposes very little in this regard. It provides for standard acoustic indexes for the 24 hours of the day
(divided into the three periods defined in the Directive: day, evening and night), but defers any
definition of these until subsequent legislation is drafted;

(cid:1) the draft law is vague as regards the noise maps and their typology (which are mandatory under the
Directive), as it also defers until subsequent legislation the population density factors applicable to the
delimitation of urban agglomerations, and the actual typology of the noise maps, etc.;

(cid:1) the action plans laid down in Annex V to the Directive are only taken up at a broad objectives level in
the preliminary draft law, with the definition of their minimum contents, as set out in the Directive,
being deferred until later.

The Commission can and should work with the Member States to ensure the correct transposition of
directives into national law, by suggesting corrections, during the pre-approval process, to any aspects
thereof which may present weaknesses.

In view of this, will the Commission intervene in the process of the transposition of Directive 2002/49/EC
to correct those aspects of the Spanish preliminary draft law which clearly fail to conform with the
provisions of Community noise legislation?

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2003)

The Commission has received the preliminary draft law transposing Directive 2002/49/EC of the European
the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of
Parliament and of
environmental noise (cid:1) Commission statement within the conciliation committee regarding the Directive
relating to the assessment and management of ambient noise, as well as the reports the Honourable
Member attached to this question.

However, given that the preliminary draft is liable to be amended, the Commission does not propose to
comment on it at this stage. It can therefore only await the formal notification of the measures transposing
the Directive.

The Commission is at the disposal of the Spanish authorities to provide them with any assistance they may
require in adopting measures to transpose the Directive by no later than 18 July 2004. Such measures
must be notified to the Commission.

(2004/C 78 E/0759)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1285/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: European Union action to ensure civil and respectful treatment for prisoners of war in Iraq

Right from the outset of the war in Iraq we have seen disturbing images of the inhuman treatment to
which prisoners from the Anglo-American alliance are being subjected. The conduct of the Iraqi authorities
manifestly contravenes the provisions of the Geneva Convention as regards respect for prisoners of war.
It may very soon be that EU citizens are prisoners of war of the Iraqi authorities too.

What action will the Commission take in this regard?