WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/03 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Health hazard posed by fuels in military use.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: aviation fuel, case-law (EU), health risk, information policy, military secret, occupational health, toxic substance

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/153

Can the Commission say what measures it will take, following on from the earlier issues which have now
been partially resolved, with a view to abolishing the visa requirement for residents of Switzerland who
come from countries which are not members of the European Union,
in the context of reciprocal
measures, given that in August 2000 Switzerland abolished the visa requirement for citizens of a third
country legally resident in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission’s attention has already been drawn (1) to the situation of third-country nationals residing
in Switzerland who, because of their nationality (2), must be in possession of a visa when travelling to a
Schengen State or when simply passing through a Schengen State on their way to their country of origin.

This matter has been examined by the competent group in the Council, the ‘visa’ group, which came to the
conclusion that the Schengen acquis does not prevent multiple-transit visas with a lengthy period of
validity from being issued to those residents. The consular departments of the Member States have been
informed of this possibility, which, as the Honourable Member acknowledges,
is a step in the right
direction in that it cuts down on the number of visits made to consulates to apply for visas.

That said, the Commission is still considering a solution that would exempt third-country nationals in
possession of residence documents for Switzerland from the visa requirement
for passing through
Schengen States or even for making short stays there. Such a solution would, in any event, necessitate
amendments to the Schengen acquis.

(1) Written Question No E-0557/02 by Mr Imbeni and Mr Pittella, OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in
from that

possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt
requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(2004/C 65 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Health hazard posed by fuels in military use

(16 July 2003)

The aircraft fuel Jet-Propellant 8 (JP-8), which is suspected of posing a serious health hazard (cf. for
is present in large quantities in military installations and
example, New Scientist of 13 June 2001),
pipelines throughout the European Union.

The Commission:

1. Does it not agree that, in accordance with the environmental information directive, the public has a
right to receive information on possible hazards, particularly since no trade secrets need be divulged in
this case?

2. Does it know what additives are contained in JP-8 and what their exact chemical composition and

concentration is? Does JP-8 contain or release 1.2-dibromoethane in any form?

3. What health effects does JP-8 have, particularly as a result of exhaust fumes, aerosols and vapours?

What investigations and tests is knowledge of these effects based on?

4. Does JP-8 have components that are subject to more stringent limit values or widely banned in civil

use?

5. How are airfield employees and those living nearby protected from the dangers of JP-8? What

protective measures are in existence or planned?

C 65 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty establishes a derogation whereby the Member States may take such
measures as they consider necessary for the protection of the essential interests of their security which are
connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war materials.

The Member States have systematically interpreted Article 296 in an extensive manner, wishing to
maintain strict national control over all aspects of the production of and trade in defence goods, thus
excluding the military sector from the application of the EC Treaty rules.

However, the case-law (1) of the Court of Justice interprets this derogation in a more restrictive manner:

(cid:1) the Member States cannot claim a ‘reservation of sovereign rights’ within the meaning of public

international law and do not have discretionary powers of judgment;

(cid:1) the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to monitor the use made of the concept of protection of the

essential interests of security (as regards need, pertinence and proportionality);

(cid:1) Article 196 does not limit the Community’s powers ratione materiae.

This case-law was confirmed by a recent judgment (2) of the Court of Justice, which refers specifically to
Article 296.

With this in mind, the Commission can provide the following information in reply to the various
questions asked by the Honourable Member:

1. Article 7 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on
the environment (3) requires Member States to provide general information to the public on the state
of the environment. From early 2005 onwards, this provision will be replaced by more detailed
provisions on the active dissemination of environmental information, as laid down in Article 7 of
Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 (4).

However, both Directives provide that Member States may refuse access to information, if disclosure
would adversely affect national defence. In such cases, Member States are also not obliged to actively
disseminate information.

2. and 3. The Commission has no information on the composition of JP-8 or its additives. Should it
contain 1,2-dibromoethane, then please note that this substance has a harmonised classification as a
carcinogen (category 2, so it can be assumed to provoke cancer in humans); is toxic by inhalation, in
contact with the skin and if swallowed; is irritating to the eyes, respiratory system and skin; and is
toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment. The
combustion of JP-8 may produce totally different substances from 1,2-dibromoethane, which may be
much more or much less toxic. Scientists observe such effects when they study the ‘chemistry of the
flame’. The Commission has no information on this, however.

4. Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (5) provides that within the context of his
responsibilities, the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of
workers. To that end, the employer shall be in possession of an assessment of the risks to safety and
health at work, decide on the protective measures to be taken and,
if necessary, the protective
equipment to be used. These obligations are further defined in Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April
1998 (6) on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical
agents at work and in Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 (7) on the protection of workers
from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/155

At present, there is no European limit value for occupational exposure to 1,2-dibromoethane.

5. The Commission has no information concerning the precautionary and protective measures taken in

or around military installations.

(1) Case 222/84 Johnston v. Chief Constable [1986] ECR 1651.
(2) Case 414/97 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [1999] ECR I-05585.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(4) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.
(5) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(6) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(7) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Predatory sea birds

Some sea birds such as cormorants are having a devastating effect on silver shoal fish in EU rivers and
estuaries.

There is also a detrimental impact on the food chain, adversely affecting many species of birds and large
fish.

Are predatory sea birds such as cormorants protected in any way by EU legislation or do national
authorities have the power to carry out culls where necessary?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The Honourable Member has expressed his concern regarding the impact that some species of predatory
sea bird, such as the cormorants, have on silver shoal fish in Union rivers and estuaries.

Concerning the protection status of these birds the Commission would like to emphasise that like all the
wild birds species, the cormorant is covered by the general system of protection of the Birds Directive (1),
Member States may derogate from the prohibition of deliberate killing or capture by any method, the
deliberate destruction of, or damage to their nests and eggs or removal of their nests in accordance with
the system of derogations of the Birds Directive (Article 9).

When the Birds Directive was adopted in 1979,
the cormorant,
Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis was regarded as in danger and therefore was listed in the Annex I to the
Directive as a species subject of special conservation measures concerning its habitat,
including the
protection of the sites.

the continental

subspecies of

Nevertheless, the population of this species has increased significantly and the species is now regarded as
being in a favourable conservation status. Following these developments, the Commission, after having
consulted the Member States, removed the cormorant from Annex I to the Directive.

The Commission is aware of
interests between fishermen and
cormorants in certain regions of the Union and agreed with the Member States that the derogations
provisions of the Birds Directive can be fully applied to prevent the serious damage caused by cormorants,
where justified and where there is no other satisfactory solution.

there are conflicts of

the fact

that