WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/03 by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission. Digital tachographs: Corrections to Annex 1B.
Date: 2003-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community certification, EU Official Journal, electronic device, information storage, interpretation of the law, legal basis, road transport, speed control

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/103

Applying this principle, the Court held that where children enjoy a right of residence in a Member State to
follow courses of general education there in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1), this
provision, if it is not to be deprived of its useful effect, must be interpreted as allowing the parent who has
actual care of the children, irrespective of nationality, to remain with them so as to facilitate the exercise of
that right, even if the parents are divorced or the parent who has Union citizenship is no longer a migrant
worker in the host Member State.

It follows from this judgement that the parent, irrespective of nationality, who has actual care of the child,
even if he or she is not gainfully employed in the host Member State, has the right of residence and cannot
be obliged to prove that he or she has sufficient resources or healthcare insurance, because the right of
residence is based not on Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (2) but
on Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, which does not impose such conditions.

Another interesting case, addressing the issue of rights parents can derive from their underage children,
is being currently examined by the Court of Justice (Case C-200/02 Chen). The case concerns the right of
residence of a Chinese mother of a baby girl who is Irish. The Chinese mother went to give birth to her
child in Ireland in order for the child to acquire Irish nationality. Mother and daughter then moved to the
United Kingdom where the Chinese mother claimed right of residence under Community legislation. The
Court will ascertain whether the mother can derive her right of residence from her child, even if the child
does not fulfil the conditions of right of residence and her mother is not dependent on her (in this case the
baby is dependent on the mother). The answer given by the Court will clarify the issue.

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

(2004/C 70 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2467/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Digital tachographs: Corrections to Annex 1B

On 16 December 2002 there was a meeting held in Brussels between the Commission and manufacturers
of tachograph equipment and cards. This meeting highlighted the fact that a number of errors had
appeared in the text of Annex 1B between submission for publication by the Commission and publication
in the Official Journal. These errors, though apparently small, were such that type approval was not
possible without correction of the text. A tachograph CATP meeting was held on 26 June 2003 where
these errors were reviewed and corrections were agreed. The Commission stated at the CATP meeting that
the corrections would probably be published in the Official Journal in September 2003.

Whilst it is quite acceptable to carry out type-approval testing against requirements not yet published, it is
normal legal practice only to issue type-approval certificates against an officially published text.

Will the Commission please confirm that this is the case here? In other words, please confirm that type-
approval certificates may only be issued after publication of the text against which approval is sought?

If the Commission is unable to confirm this interpretation, will it please indicate the legal basis for its
alternative interpretation?

C 70 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

On 26 June 2003 at a meeting of the CATP (Tachograph Committee) the Commission proposed a number
of corrections to the text of Annex 1B (1). The Committee unanimously agreed to these corrections.

Copies of the agreed corrections were then sent to the members of the Committee, to industry and to
other stakeholders, in order to prepare for type approval of the recording equipment and the tachograph
cards.

Meanwhile, the Commission will prepare the adoption and publication of the corrections. Publication in
the Official Journal is expected in October/November 2003.

interoperability certificates and the
It should be noted that between the delivery of first provisional
definitive interoperability certificates, a period of at
four months should intervene. Only if a
manufacturer holds a definitive interoperability certificate (plus a security certificate and a functional
certificate) can he apply for a type approval certificate. The first interoperability tests are expected to start
soon now and as soon as they have been completed, the manufacturers can apply for the type approval
certificate. Therefore, Member State authorities will be able to issue type approval certificates on the basis
of the text of the Annex 1B, including the corrections, as officially published in the Official Journal of the
European Union.

least

(1) Annex 1B to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1360/2002 of 13 June 2002 adapting for the seventh time to
technical progress Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, OJ L 207,
5.8.2002.

(2004/C 70 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(24 July 2003)

Subject: Digital tachographs: revised introduction timescales

Regulation (EC) 2135/98 (1), Article 2, paragraph 3 states:

In the event that 12 months after the date of publication of the act referred to in paragraph 1,
EC type-approval has not been granted to any item of recording equipment which conforms to the
requirements of Annex IB to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85, the Commission shall submit a proposal
to the Council for an extension of the deadline laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Assuming confirmation as requested in Question E-2468/03, ‘the act referred to in paragraph 1’ refers to
Regulation (EC) 1360/2002 (2). ’12 months after the publication of the act referred to in paragraph 1’ is
then 5 August 2003.

According to Annex 1B requirement 291, a minimum period of at least four months is required between
issue of a provisional interoperability certificate and subsequent issue of a definitive certificate. If (as was
originally intended) the interoperability certificate needed according to Requirement 271 of Annex 1B is a
definitive certificate (Requirement 292), then such a certificate could only be issued by 5 August 2003 if a
provisional certificate had been issued prior to 5 April 2003. It is very clear that such a provisional
interoperability certificate had not been issued prior to 5 July 2003, let alone prior to 5 April.

is to maintain legal records of the
The primary purpose of tachographs, be they digital or analogue,
activities of drivers. It is surely inconceivable that the legal standing of the records made by digital
tachographs would be jeopardised by failure to follow the correct
legal processes leading to their
introduction.

the Commission please confirm that

they will comply with the requirements of Regulation
Will
(EC) 2135/98, Article 2, paragraph 3? Will they please state when they will
‘submit a proposal to the
Council for an extension of the deadline laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2 [of Regulation (EC) 2135/98]’?

(1) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207, 5.8.2002, p. 1.