WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Avermectin.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: biodegradability, organic fertiliser, pesticide, pesticide residue, pharmaceutical legislation, plant health legislation, toxic substance, waste

C 78 E/220

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission regrets that it does not have sufficient information to be able to fully answer the written
question.

To the best of the Commission’s knowledge, charges for banking operations are decided by each bank on
the basis of its costs and the competitive environment. If, as alleged in the written question, prices are the
same for all banks, and the Honourable Member has reasons to believe that there may have been collusion
between banks in deciding on identical prices,
that he submit this
information to the national competition authorities. The Commission, in principle, does not intervene on
the question of prices. The only Union provision dealing with prices for payments is Regulation (EC)
the Council of 19 December 2001 on cross-border payments in euro (1), which
No 2560/2001 of
establishes a non-discrimination rule between charges for national and cross-border payments in euro.

the Commission would suggest

As regards information concerning charges in Member States to citizens for deposits, withdrawals and the
provision of account information, the Commission has not collected and is not aware of the existence of
such information. Several thousand financial institutions in the Union set these prices independently and
no average prices per country are collected for these charges.

As regards average interest rates on current and savings accounts in the 12 euro-zone countries, the
European Central Bank (ECB) gathers and publishes certain unharmonised national statistics on current
account deposits, time deposits and savings accounts. However, such rates cannot be compared directly
with one another. The tables from the ECB can be accessed on the Internet at the following address:
(http://www.ecb.int/stats/nrir/rir_nrir.pdf). The Commission will send the Honourable Member a copy of
the more detailed tables separately.

In June 2003, average interest rates ranged from 0,15 % to 1,48 % for current accounts, and from 0,04 %
to 3,15 % for savings accounts, in those Member States where such information was available. The average
for the euro area was 1,85 % for deposits with one year maturity, and 1,83 % for deposits redeemable at up
to three months notice.

(1) OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3074/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Avermectin

The pesticide Avermectin (also known as Abamectin and Ivermectin) is classified by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) as a class IV toxicity pesticide, or practically non-toxic. At very high doses,
however,
it can affect mammals, causing symptoms of nervous system depression, such as lack of
coordination, tremors, lethargy, anxiety and pupil dilation.

How is this pesticide regulated by the EU?

Is the Commission satisfied with the level of compliance with existing EU legislation on this pesticide at
Member State level, and if not, what action is it considering?

What is the Commission’s response to claims that residues of this insecticide in animal waste slow down
the composting process?

Further to its 2002 communication on soil protection (1), what formal response has the Commission
received so far from the Irish Government to its proposals for legislation on compost and other biowaste,
due in 2004?

(1) COM(2002) 179 final.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/221

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The use of
the group of active substances named avermectins (including among other substances
abamectin and ivermectin) is legislated for in plant protection product legislation, in biocides legislation
and in veterinary medicinal products legislation. The legislation also provides for the establishment of
maximum residue limits in products of plant and animal origin.

Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, on the placing of plant protection products on the
market (1) provides that active substances may only be used in plant protection where it has been
demonstrated that the use has no unacceptable effects on human health or the environment. Pending
Community evaluations and Commission Decisions on individual substances that were already on the
market in July 1993, the Directive permitted national rules to stay in place on a temporary basis.
Abamectin is on the third priority list of substances established by the Commission under the Directive.
Under Commission Regulation (EC) No 451/2000 of 28 February 2000 laying down the detailed rules for
the implementation of the second and third stages of the work programme referred to in Article 8(2) of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2), industry indicated its interest in supporting the substance in the review
process. A complete dossier has to be submitted to the Commission by 25 November 2003. The
Commission will decide on the acceptability of the use of abamectin in plant protection on the basis of an
evaluation of that dossier.

Maximum levels of abamectin residues in food arising from its use in plant protection products are fixed in
Commission Directive 2002/79/EC of 2 October 2002 amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/
895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards the fixing of maximum levels for certain
pesticide residues in and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin,
including fruit and vegetables (3).

The use of abacmectin in biocidal products is governed by Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and the
Council of 16 February 1998, on the placing of biocidal products on the market (4). The Directive provides
that active substances may only be used in biocidal products where it has been demonstrated that the use
has no unacceptable effects on human health or the environment. Pending Community evaluations and
Commission Decisions on individual substances that were already on the market in May 2000, the
Directive permits national rules to stay in place on a temporary basis. Abamectin has been notified by
industry in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 of 7 September 2000 on the first
phase of the programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council on biocidal products (5) for use in two product types: insecticides and molluscicides. In accordance
with a soon to be adopted Commission Regulation, a complete dossier for use in insecticides will have to
be submitted by 30 April 2006 at the latest. The Commission will decide on the acceptability of the use of
abamectin in biocidal products on the basis of an evaluation of that dossier.

Maximum residues limits of abamectin residues in bovine and ovine tissues arising from its use in
veterinary medicine have been established by Commission Regulations (EC) No 3425/93 of 14 December
1993 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community
procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs
of animal origin (6) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 868/2002 of 24 May 2002 amending Annexes I
and II of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 (7) respectively.

The Commission has not received any reports indicating that existing Community legislation on this
pesticide is not complied with by the Member States.

The Commission has not received any reports that residues of this pesticide in animal waste slow down
the composting process. Any such impact of residues arising from the use of the pesticide in plant
protection would be evaluated as part of the assessment scheduled to be undertaken under Directive 91/
414/EEC.

C 78 E/222

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In the context of the Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on soil protection’, the Commission
has announced a series of initiatives, including the development of a proposal for the management of
biowaste. Such a Communication did not require any specific response from Member States. The Council
has adopted conclusions on integrated soil protection on 25 June 2002. In it, Council stressed that
ongoing environmental
inter alia, compost would make an important
contribution to soil protection and requested the Commission to present the appropriate proposals as
soon as possible.

legislation initiatives on,

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991.
(2) OJ L 55, 29.2.2000.
(3) OJ L 291, 28.10.2002.
(4) OJ L 123, 24.4.1998.
(5) OJ L 228, 8.9.2000.
(6) OJ L 312, 15.12.1993.
(7) OJ L 137, 25.5.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3096/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Protection of monopolies and high fares by means of aviation agreements with third countries and

attempts by potential competitors to break such monopolies

1.
Is the Commission aware that, on the basis of a 1996 agreement, the airlines KLM and SLM enjoy a
monopoly in the form of a joint venture on the busy scheduled route between Schiphol in the Netherlands
and Zanderij in the former Netherlands colony of Suriname?

2. What view does the Commission take of the fact that much higher fares are charged on this route
than on internal French flights to the overseas department of Cayenne (French Guyana), given that this
French route can offer no serious competition to KLM and SLM whilst there is no good road link between
Cayenne and Suriname?

3.
Is it normal and permissible for an EU Member State to conclude an aviation agreement with a third
country in order to reserve routes for two of its ‘own’ airlines, with abnormally high fares as the result? Is
the Commission aware of any other examples of this practice? Do those cases also involve routes to
former colonies which are vital to the countries in question in that they provide their inhabitants with a
link to their families, universities and the outside world in general?

4.
Is the Commission aware that, as from 1 November 2003, the Netherlands airline Air Holland
intends to offer a competing seat-only service between the Netherlands and Suriname, with fares roughly
half those charged under the current monopoly, and that, should the Netherlands once again refuse Air
Holland a licence, flights would be operated from Belgium, which has a separate aviation agreement with
Suriname?

5. What steps can the Commission take in order to ensure that, in the light of the much lower fares,
more passengers can use the services operated via Cayenne, the Caribbean island of Curaçao or Brussels?

Source: the 7 October 2003 edition of the Netherlands daily newspaper de Volkskrant.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission is aware that air traffic between the Member States and third countries is regulated by
bilateral air service agreements concluded between the countries where the airports are located. The
Commission is also aware that some of these agreements impose restrictions on the number of air carriers