WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/03 by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission. Development of new nuclear power stations.
Date: 2003-11-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: electrical energy, energy production, environmental standard, liberalisation of the market, nuclear energy, nuclear policy, nuclear power station

C 78 E/272

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In order for this border closure to comply with the principle of freedom of movement, it needs to be based
on one or more specific, legal provisions concerning derogation.

Can the Commission state what the condition(s) is/are in this case? Are they furthermore applicable in the
Community, and under what conditions? Are there furthermore other provisions of the same kind,
i.e. capable of producing the same effects?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2004)

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the reply given by the Commission to oral question
H-0668/03 by Glyn Ford during question time at Parliament’s plenary session of November 2003 (1).

(1) Written reply, 18.11.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3362/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Development of new nuclear power stations

Commenting on the recent power failure in Italy, European Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has
stated that the failure was partly due to Italy’s decision to close three nuclear power stations. As part of the
liberalisation of the energy market within the EU, the Commission evidently wishes to encourage a further
expansion of nuclear power in the Member States (La Quinzaine européenne, 3 November 2003). The
former President of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, in her present capacity as France’s Minister
of Industry, advocates the further development of the third-generation EPR (European pressurised reactor)
type of reactor. Unlike most Member States, France and Finland in particular have opted not to ‘freeze’
their nuclear power. On the other hand, the previous Belgian government (1999-2003) decided that
ultimately Belgium should cease to produce nuclear power.

Does not the Commission consider that a moratorium on nuclear power or a phasing-out of the existing
power stations conflicts with the proposed liberalisation of energy? What position will the Commission
adopt with regard to Member States which wish to close their power stations?

Does the Commission consider that new power stations may be built on condition this is, if necessary,
accompanied by the introduction of more flexible environmental regulations?

With a view to the forthcoming liberalisation of energy, will the Commission in due course propose
uniform environmental regulations applicable in all Member States which will give Member States the
option of building/authorising new nuclear power stations if they so wish?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

The debate opened up by the Commission following the adoption on 29 November 2000 of the Green
Paper ‘Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply’ has revived discussion of energy
options for the Member States and for the enlarged Union as a whole. The final report on the Green
Paper (1), adopted on 26 June 2002, which identifies the conclusions to this wide-ranging debate stresses
the need to keep all options open as regards energy production.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/273

The reactions to the Green Paper have shown clearly that the nuclear factor remains an inseparable part of
the debate. Nuclear power accounts for around 35 % of electricity production in the Union thus reducing
its dependence on fossil fuels.

The use of nuclear power to produce electricity is entirely a matter for the Member States. Each
Member State retains its sovereignty in relation to the means to be used to achieve security of energy
supply. A major lesson of the debate on the Green Paper as regards nuclear energy is that the future of
that sector depends on finding a clear and unequivocal answer to the question of the processing of
radioactive waste and that a high level of nuclear safety must be ensured.

The Union has committed itself on a number of occasions,
in
December 2001, to maintaining a high level of nuclear safety on its territory. For this reason, the
Commission adopted, on 30 January 2003, two proposals for Council directives in the field of nuclear
safety and management of radioactive waste (2). These two proposals, the legal basis of which is the
Euratom Treaty, are currently being discussed within the Council. In accordance with Article 31 of that
Treaty, the opinion of Parliament has been sought.

including the Laeken Summit

The approach adopted by the Commission in its two legislative proposals is legal and political rather than
normative. The intention is to take internationally agreed principles and give them force of Community
law. The implementation of these principles within a Community framework will make it possible to
ensure that all nuclear operators obey the same rules and are subject to the same constraints. Such an
approach will help to ensure healthy competition on the internal electricity market.

(1) COM(2002) 321 final.
(2) COM(2003) 32 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0274)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3372/03

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Denmark’s prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16

Several countries (cid:1) Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Cyprus etc. (cid:1) expressed their
desire during accession negotiations for a similar arrangement
to that which Denmark has under
Protocol 16 concerning the acquisition of holiday homes. They were all refused a permanent arrangement
such as Denmark has but were granted temporary transitional arrangements as set out, for example, in
draft law L 222 on enlargement to the east, pages 26 and 27. Will the Commission say whether any
countries have already argued, or are expected to argue during the forthcoming renegotiation of the
protocols, that it is unacceptable for Denmark to have a permanent arrangement while they themselves
were refused one?

Further to my question concerning the legal implications of ratification of the EU’s draft constitution, what
is the Commission’s assessment of Denmark’s prospects of renegotiating Protocol 16 at the Intergovern-
mental Conference so as to retain its derogation concerning the right of EU citizens to purchase holiday
homes in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Danish restrictions on the purchase of second homes are the only country specific exception to the free
movement of capital within the Community. The Protocol on the acquisition of property in Denmark is an
integral part of the EC Treaty, following the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, and, unlike