WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/03 by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Council. European driver attestation and suspected improper use of ECMT permits in road transport.
Date: 2003-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of Ministers, European conference, drivers, foreign national, restriction on competition, road transport, transport licence, vocational training, working conditions

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/91

listed in Annex II to the EIA Directive, Member States have to determine if the project is likely to have
significant effects on the environment on a case-by-case basis or by using thresholds or criteria. Certain
infrastructure projects are included in Annex II of the EIA Directive. On the basis of the information
provided by the Honourable Member it appears that the planned construction of the road falls under
Annex II point 10 e) and that the canalisation falls under Annex II point 10 f) of the Directive. As regards
the industrial bottling plant it is not clear from the information provided if this is already constructed or
not. In any case during the determination of the likely significant effects on the environment, Member
States should apply the selection criteria found in Annex III and examine, inter alia, the cumulative effects
of the project with other projects.

Community water protection legislation sets clear objectives on the protection of waters in general (rivers,
lakes, groundwaters and coastal waters) and those used for drinking water abstraction. It does however not
provide for a general ban on any water abstractions from rivers, be it for bottling or for other purposes.
Directive 75/440/EEC (3) has since 1975 set requirements for quality standards for surface waters used for
drinking water abstraction, requirements which have to be met also in case of water abstracted for other
purposes upstreams from the point(s) of drinking water abstraction. Further, Directive 2000/60/EC (4) sets
the objective of achieving/maintaining good quality (‘good status’) for all waters (cid:1) to be achieved by 2015
at the latest, plus an obligation for no deterioration of water status below existing status.

The Commission is making representations before the Spanish authorities to ensure that applicable
community environmental law is complied with in respect of this project.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of surface water intended for the

abstraction of drinking water in the Member States, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2004/C 51 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/03

by Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE) and Rijk van Dam (EDD) to the Council

(24 April 2003)

Subject: European driver attestation and suspected improper use of ECMT permits in road transport

On 26 March 2003 the German authorities raided branches of the Willi Betz transport company on the
grounds of suspected misuse of ECMT permits and the inadmissible employment of drivers from third
countries.

Does the Council agree that companies and drivers from third countries that use the ECMT permits for
transport within the EU,
in which they are operating virtually without restriction (in terms of time)
throughout the EU’s territory, are making improper use of the permit?

Is the Council prepared to place the problem of improper use of the permits on the agenda for the next
meeting of ECMT ministers? And is the Council further prepared to make proposals for putting an end to
this distortion of competitive relations that is undermining employment conditions in the EU and also
creating a road safety risk?

Does the Council agree that it is undesirable for drivers from ‘third countries’ to hire themselves out to
European transport companies as ‘independent drivers’, thus evading the requirement to hold a European
driver attestation? What steps can and will the Council take to put an end to such practices?

C 51 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would like to inform the Honourable Parliamentarians that the ECMT at its most recent
session in Brussels (23/24 April 2003) has adopted important measures so as to curb any possible
improper use of the ECMT permits. A reform of the use of permits was decided with the introduction of
provisions restricting the period during which hauliers are allowed to perform road haulage, by obliging
permits holders to return to their country of registration after a maximum period of six weeks. These
provisions will be implemented for a probationary period of one year from 1 January 2004. An evaluation
of the efficiency of this measure will take place at the end of this period.

Furthermore the ECMT, at that same session, adopted a resolution for an improved management of the
ECMT multilateral quota. The resolution contains a number of measures aiming at improving the exchange
of information on the actual use of the ECMT permits.

(2004/C 51 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Reform of the disciplinary procedure

As part of the reform of the Staff Regulations, the Commission has proposed changes to the disciplinary
procedure.

At present, disciplinary proceedings that have been concluded can be reopened, at the request of the
official concerned, and also on the initiative of the Appointing Authority, if there are new facts, supported
by relevant evidence, that cast a different light on the official’s behaviour.

Under the Commission proposal, only the official concerned will in future be able to have disciplinary
proceedings reopened.

In practice this would mean that the Appointing Authority’s hands would be tied if it came upon new,
incriminating evidence of misconduct by an official who previously had been cleared and not subject to
any disciplinary measures.

Does the Council consider that this is a well-advised change to the current regulations? If so, why?

If not, will it ask the Commission to withdraw its proposal?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 283 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and
the Conditions of Employment of other servants of those Communities are laid down by the Council,
acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other
institutions concerned.

The proposal for a Council Regulation amending the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of
Employment of other servants of the European Communities (Revision of the Staff Regulations)
is
currently being examined by the Council’s subordinate bodies. Under the procedure provided for, the
European Parliament will have an opportunity to put its position on this point.