WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Cosmic radiation.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, ionising radiation, public health, safety standard, transport user

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/171

The Austrian Finance Ministry took action on this matter last year (28 March 2002) by sending a request
to the Commission for clarification on whether Austrian firms were eligible for refunds in these
circumstances. So far the Commission has not replied.

I would therefore like answers to the following questions:

1. Are refunds possible for Austrian sugar-processing operations?

2.

If so, can refunds be retroactive?

3. What procedure must be gone through to obtain retroactive refunds?

4.

If not, on the basis of which directives is a refund impossible?

(1) OJ C 152, 26.6.2002, p. 14.

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

It is up to the competent national authorities to decide whether or not export refunds can be granted
pursuant to the Community regulations. Operators should therefore contact them in the event of any
problem.

In the case raised by the honourable member, the Commission takes the view that sugar imported from
Croatia and Serbia used to manufacture the processed products referred to in Annex V to Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar
sector (1) should not receive refunds pursuant to Article 27(3) and (12) of that Regulation. The Commission
will take the appropriate initiatives to ensure uniform interpretation of these provisions as soon as
possible.

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.

(2004/C 33 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Cosmic radiation

In 1996, the EU agreed a directive (96/29/Euratom (1)) on basic safety standards for the protection of the
health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. With
reference to aviation, provision was only made for aircrew and pregnant women. In the light of the recent
evidence on risks, does the Commission now agree that frequent flyers should be included in the safety
standards?

(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Title VII (Articles 40 to 42) of Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996 laying down the basic
safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers
arising from ionising radiation relates to significant increase in exposures due to natural radiation sources
as a consequence of work activities.

The only activity specifically identified in this Title is aircrew exposed to cosmic radiation (Article 42).
Member States can always adapt at national level, specific provisions for example for frequent flyers if they
consider that appropriate.

C 33 E/172

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The Commission is not aware of any new evidence on risks arising from cosmic radiation which would
justify an adaptation of the radiation protection basic safety standards Directive at this stage.

(2004/C 33 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1803/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Large-scale hunting of migratory birds in Malta

We recently received a report that in Malta the spring migration of birds culminated in large-scale hunting
of protected migratory species, even in protected areas. In its answer to Written Question E-3036/02 (1),
the Commission stated that when it joins the Union Malta will be required to transpose and comply with
all the provisions of the bird protection directive. The Commission also made clear that the situation in
countries joining the Union with regard to compliance with and transposition of the bird protection and
habitats directive will be monitored closely.

Can the Commission confirm that large-scale hunting of protected bird species during the spring

1.
migration did indeed take place?

Does the Commission share our view that such hunting runs counter to the obligations laid down in

2.
the bird protection directive?

Can the Commission state what if any measures it intends to take to draw Malta’s attention to those

3.
obligations?

Does the Commission share our view that under the bird protection directive a blanket ban on the

4.
spring hunting of birds, the trapping of birds and hunting at sea is justified?

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission does not have confirmation of the claims of large-scale hunting made by the Honourable
Members and therefore is unable to comment as to whether these claims run counter to the obligations of
the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1).

The obligations of the Birds Directive have been underlined by the Commission in its contacts with Malta
on numerous occasions and the Commission will continue to monitor Malta’s compliance with the
commitments it has given in the run-up to accession. The Commission would also refer to its previous
response to Written Question E-3036/02 by Mrs Corbey.

Under the current jurisdiction, the Birds Directive would not demand an automatic blanket ban of the
activities.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.