WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approximation of laws, commercial vehicle, international road transport, traffic control, traffic regulations

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/169

The Commission will soon adopt a Regulation that will contain the lists of identified and notified
substances as well as the workplan for the submission of complete dossiers and their evaluation
(for example, dossiers for wood preservatives will have to be submitted by 28 March 2004). The Standing
Committee on Biocidal products gave a favourable opinion on the draft Regulation on 11 June 2003 and
the Parliament has been duly informed of the draft text and the outcome of the vote.

Substances that have been notified can stay on the market until a decision on the acceptability of the risks
to human health and the environment has been taken. For substances that have only been identified,
no operator will submit a complete dossier and therefore their safety for human health or the environment
cannot be evaluated. The Regulation will therefore lay down that such substances will have to be phased
out within a period of grace of three years from adoption of the Regulation.

This will apply to all the 550 substances that have only been identified including pine tar. However, at any
time a company or the authorities of Member States could produce a complete dossier that would allow
the evaluation of the substance, which could lead to its inclusion into one of the Annexes of Directive 98/
8/EC and its continued use, provided that all safety requirements of the Directive are fulfilled. The Finnish
authorities have already raised the specific issue of pine tar in the framework of the implementation of the
Directive and further information can be found on the Commission’s website (3) and the website of the
Finnish authorities (4).

(1) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
(2) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/biocides/manualofdecisions030618.pdf (pages 27/28 of the document).
(4) http://www.ymparisto.fi/ympsuo/kemik/terva.htm

(2004/C 58 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles

More than 40 000 Portuguese professional drivers regularly cross various European Union countries in the
course of their work for haulage companies transporting heavy goods.

There are a number of restrictions on the movement of heavy goods vehicles, as is the case in France,
where vehicles weighing more than 3 500 kg are not permitted to travel on Sundays.

Without wishing to question the need to regulate the sector, particularly with regard to restrictions on
movement, minimum rest periods and maximum working hours for drivers,
there are exceptional
situations which should be taken into account.

For example, a driver may be only a matter of minutes away from the border but is not able to cross it
before the start of the ban, in which case he is obliged to remain there for 24 hours even though he is
already on his way home.

Can the Commission say what measures it will take to regulate such situations, after hearing the social
partners (business organisations and trade unions representing the sector) and the Member State legal
authorities involved and taking account of the various interests in play?

C 58 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

There are currently no Community rules regulating driving bans or restrictions within the Union.
The Commission had made a proposal in 1998 (1) on measures to inform Union citizens of driving bans,
to harmonise exempted vehicles and loads, and to align the national rules on the length of bans. Following
strong opposition from those Member States implementing driving restrictions, the Commission adopted
an amended proposal (2) to highlight that the scope of the proposal only concerned Trans European Road
Networks, to list explicitly those national holidays on which driving restrictions apply and to recognise
within a revised timeframe the vast majority of current driving restrictions. Following Parliament’s first
reading of the amended proposal on 2 July 2002, the Commission has decided to adopt a revised
proposal (3) on 1 August 2003 which takes on board the majority of clarifying and amplifying
amendments proposed by the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.
(2) OJ C 120, 24.4.2001.
(3) COM(2003) 473 final.

(2004/C 58 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: slow processing of material supplied two years ago relating, inter alia, to irregularities

since acknowledged

Does the Commission recall

1.
that on 13 August 2001 Paul van Buitenen, who was then a
Commission official, submitted to the Commission a 5000-page fraud file and that Commissioner Kinnock
has confirmed that he received a copy of the accompanying 234-page memorandum at the beginning of
September 2001? Why has the investigation into this file still not been completed within the various EU
departments? When will a final result be available? Who will then be permitted to know about it?

2.
Does the file referred to at 1 above include a chapter concerning the various irregularities which
occurred at Eurostat over a period of years, and do these include numerous matters which go beyond what
has so far come to public attention? Had many Commission officials already known about these matters
for some time, in the light of the internal correspondence on the subject?

Does the Van Buitenen file mention any other matters on which it appears in retrospect that the

3.
Commission may not have taken the right action?

4. Why did Commissioner Kinnock make OLAF responsible for the chapter on Eurostat in the second
report by Van Buitenen of 31 August 2001? Was this on the assumption that DG Admin would then no
longer be involved in the case?

5. What are the Commission’s present intentions as regards how this question should be dealt with and
any recurrence permanently prevented?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

1., 3. and 4.
On 31 August 2001, Mr Van Buitenen submitted the file to which the Honourable Member
refers both to the Director-General of the Antifraud Office (OLAF) and to the Director-General of the
Commission’s Directorate General (DG) Administration and Personnel (ADMIN). As has been reported to
Parliament, on the basis of preliminary drafts submitted by Mr Van Buitenen OLAF and DG ADMIN had
already held discussions at services level and identified those aspects of the dossier which appeared to be
within OLAF’s remit, as set out in Article 1(3) of Council Regulation 1073/1999, and were therefore for
the dossier were to be investigated by DG ADMIN. These
OLAF to investigate. Other aspects of