WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/03 by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission. Body piercing.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, consumer protection, health legislation, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, public health

C 33 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In reply to questions asked on this issue by Ria Oomen-Ruijten during the 1 July plenary debate on
‘Packaging and packaging waste’, Commissioner Wallström stated: ‘Mr Bolkestein and myself have made
clear that we are not satisfied with the current situation in Germany, and we have urged the German
Government to set up a return system in conformity with Community legislation, which can also be a
nation-wide, one-way deposit. We are taking action and we will continue to do so.’

1.
Can the Commission indicate, in accordance with Commissioner Wallström’s statement, what steps it
is taking to ensure that the German Government will take the necessary measures to set up a return
system in conformity with Community legislation?

2.

Can the Commission indicate the time frame in which it will take the above-mentioned steps?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The background to this case was explained in the reply given by the Commission on 3 July 2003 to
Written Question 1549/03 (1).

With regard to the present additional questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Members as
follows. By letter dated 15 May 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for Internal Market,
Mr Bolkestein, and the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment, Mrs. Wallström,
expressed their views to the German Minister for the Environment, Mr Trittin, that the one-way deposit
system currently applied in Germany may constitute a serious breach both of Article 28 of the EC Treaty
and of Article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
packaging waste (2). Minister Trittin replied by letters dated 6 June, 7 July and 18 July 2003. In these
letters, the Minister indicates that the German Government is determined to set up a return system in
conformity with Community legislation by 1 October 2003 and that the remaining time until that date is
needed to resolve practical implementation problems.

In his letter sent on 18 July to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, the Chancellor, Mr Gerhard
Schröder, also gave his personal commitment that the German Government will not tolerate any further
transitional period going beyond the deadline of 1 October 2003.

In view of the above, on 23 July 2003, President Prodi replied to Chancellor Schröder. He expressed his
continued concerns on the current application of the German mandatory deposit system. In particular, in
view of the system’s effects on Union imports, on the one hand he asked the Chancellor to consider the
possibility of suspending the deposit regime in its current form, until a nation-wide return system covering
the entire German territory is operational. On the other hand, he indicated that the Commission will have
to initiate infringement procedures against Germany if, by 1 October 2003, no return system in
compliance with Community law is set up.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 192.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 33 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Body piercing

Does the Commission consider it necessary to make proposals for minimum common standards for
licensing and operation for the commercial provision of the services of tattooing or body piercing in the
EU in order to protect the health of the general public and to avoid needless tragedies like the recent death
of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield in the UK? If not, why not?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/269

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the health concerns that may be associated with tattooing and body piercing.

Recently, a number of Member States, including the United Kingdom, have introduced national measures
on the safety and hygiene of tattooing and body piercing practices. As the Honourable Member notes,
there are no Community harmonised measures or standards in place.

In order to ensure a consistent and uniform high level of consumer health protection, the Commission has
initiated the collection and assessment of all necessary information related to the safety of tattoos and body
piercing. The activity is being conducted in the context of the recently established European Information
System on the Exposure of Consumers to chemicals from products/articles project (EIS-CHEMRISKS) and
consists of a series of thematic meetings and workshops among scientists and technical experts in the field.
The types of chemicals and the safety information to support their use in tattoos, national regulations on
tattoos/piercing in the Union and elsewhere, reported adverse health effects associated with tattoos/
piercing, hygiene practices and requirements, and professional training requirements, are the main topics
where information is being gathered.

The Commission recently published three working documents from this activity: a review of published
reports of adverse health effects associated with tattoos/body piercing; a regulatory review on tattoos/body
piercing in the Union and elsewhere; and proceedings from a dedicated scientific workshop that took place
on 5-6 May 2003 in Ispra, Italy (1).

It is expected that the technical experts participating in the activity will be in a position to finalise these
documents in the near future. The Commission intends to submit these for review to the Commission’s
Scientific Committees before considering the need for further steps.

In addition,
the Commission has commissioned a separate study to investigate the specific purity
requirements of the metal alloys used in piercing post assemblies and in particular in relation to their
nickel content and their potential to induce skin allergies (allergic contact dermatitis). This has been
submitted for evaluation to the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the
Environment (SCTEE). The Commission will consider any appropriate action on the basis of the SCTEE
opinion.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_proc_052003_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_risk_052003_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/cons_safe/news/eis_tattoo_reg_052003_en.pdf

.

(2004/C 33 E/280)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2534/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Problem of ‘cross-border pupils’

For some time Netherlands municipalities in areas on the border with Germany have had to deal with the
problem of children from Dutch families who live over the border in Germany and undergo primary
education in the Netherlands and vice versa. At the De Biezenkamp primary school in Beek (Ubbergen), for
example, the number of pupils involved is 33 out of a total of 800. In the municipality of Losser the figure
is 35 pupils and in Groesbeek 19. The municipality of Maastricht has 200 pupils from Belgium.

The municipality receives no state funding for these ‘cross-border pupils’ because the resources for primary
school infrastructure are allocated on the basis of the number of children aged 0 (cid:1) 19 resident in the
municipality.