WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Labelling of products containing asbestos.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, asbestos, labelling, marketing restriction, national implementing measure

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/37

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission is closely monitoring the implementation of the commitments Poland has made in the
law the
accession negotiations. This is the case with regard to the amendment to the audio-visual
Honourable Member refers to in his first question, as well as with regard to all other areas that have been
subject to the negotiations with Poland.

The Commission is, however, not in a position to judge upon the ‘Rywin-gate’ corruption affair to which
the first three questions refer. This affair is currently under close investigation by the Polish judicial
authorities. The Public Prosecutor has concluded its work and is expected to submit the outcome to the
relevant court within the next couple of days. In the meantime, the special inquiry committee of the Polish
Parliament, will pursue its investigation of the affair. Whilst the Commission may regret that bribery
attempts at such a scale could have taken place, it also notes the openness and determination by which it
is being dealt with by the Polish authorities at this moment.

With regard to questions 4 and 5, the Commission wishes to underline that the accession negotiations as
well as the monitoring of commitments with the ten Candidate Countries have been, and are being, carried
out on a purely objective basis, with no more favourable treatment for any of the Candidate Countries.
The same standards have applied during the negotiations and will continue to be applied in the monitoring
process.

As regards the last question, the Commission concluded in its Regular Report on Poland’s Progress towards
accession of October 2002 (1) that Poland would be fulfilling all of the three accession criteria (political,
economic and ‘acquis’ related) as from 2004 onwards. The Member States concluded that enlargement
would take place on 1 May 2004 and the Commission, as explained above, is closely monitoring further
progress made by all of the Candidate Countries. A Comprehensive Monitoring Report, laying down the
results of this monitoring process, is scheduled to be presented to the Parliament and to the Council and
made public by the beginning of November 2003. On the basis of this Report, the Commission may
consider safeguard clauses in certain specific areas if such are necessary.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/report2002/pl_en.pdf.

(2004/C 78 E/0037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1551/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Labelling of products containing asbestos

Council Directive 83/478/EEC (1) of 19 September 1983 lays down special provisions making it
compulsory for the labelling of products containing asbestos to warn against the dangers.

However, in Portugal some products containing asbestos, such as fibre-cement, do not carry a warning
when sold to the public.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the legal transposition of this directive in
Portugal?

Can it explain the reason for Portugal’s non-compliance?

(1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2003)

Council Directive 83/478/EEC of 19 September 1983 amending for the fifth time (asbestos) Directive 76/
769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations was

C 78 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

transposed into Portuguese national legislation on 14 January 1987 as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 28/87 de 14/01/
1987. Limita a comercialização e a utilização do amianto e dos produtos que o contenham, Diário da
República I Série n. 11 de 14/01/1987 Página 183’.

Portugal has therefore complied with the obligation to transpose the Directive into national legislation, in
particular those provisions dealing with the labelling of products containing asbestos (Annex II of Directive
83/478/EEC).

It is nevertheless important to note that, apart from Annex II which is still in force today, the Annex I of
Directive 83/478/EEC is no longer in force.
Indeed Directive 83/478/EEC has been subsequently
amended (1) or adapted (2) (3), by several Directives that will lead by 1 January 2005 to a total ban of all
kind of asbestos fibres (except diaphragms for electrolysis installation). The placing on the market of
asbestos based fibre-cement, except for that containing chrysotile, is already prohibited within the Union.

The enforcement of the provisions of Directive 83/478/EEC (labelling) and its subsequent modifications in
the national legislation is primarily the responsibility of the Member State concerned. Nevertheless, the
Commission has responsibility for ensuring that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by
the institutions pursuant thereto, including directives, are applied. It will, therefore, contact the Portuguese
authorities in order to ensure that they take the necessary measures to enforce the Directive in question.

(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1985; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 138/88 de 22.4.1988’.
(2) OJ L 363, 31.12.1991; transposed into Portuguese national legislation as ‘Decreto-Lei n. 228/94 de 13.9.1994’.
(3) OJ L 142, 5.6.1999; not yet transposed into Portuguese national legislation.

(2004/C 78 E/0038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Sharp cuts in passenger services on the Slovakian rail network as a result of secret conditions in a

loan granted by the EIB in 1999

1.
Is the Commission aware that the European Investment Bank (EIB) granted the Slovakian government
a loan of EUR 120 million in 1999 and that it only later emerged that the loan was tied to conditions
imposed unilaterally by the EIB requiring stringent cuts in passenger services through the closure of
32 lines in 2002?

Does the Commission consider

to take over
2.
responsibility for the passenger services to be closed without additional government subsidies to
compensate for the losses and ensure profitability?

realistic that a private company will want

it

3.
Is the Commission aware that in October 2001 the Slovakian government and the Slovakian railways
ZSR not only refused to disclose the conditions of the loan to the international environmental organisation
Friends of the Earth, but that the EIB, despite the announcement of its new information policy in
November 2000, also refused to do so, referring to the responsibility of the other parties involved?

4.
Does the Commission consider it right that there should be secrecy surrounding the far-reaching
effects on government policy of loans granted to governments by a government-owned bank? Is this
consistent with the proper functioning of the parliamentary democracy that is an established standard
within the EU and the openness that it requires?