WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/03 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU Identity document for the disabled.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, competence of the Member States, identity document, integration of people with disabilities

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/595

Where a project subject to an EIA is likely to have a significant effect on the environment of another
Member State, it must be ensured that specific procedures are followed concerning information exchange,
participation in the assessment procedure and consultation.

The result of the consultation has to be taken into account in the development consent procedure.
However, a negative impact assessment does not automatically imply that a project is not allowed to
proceed.

In order to decide whether the construction of a petrol station requires an EIA, it is necessary to know the
capacity of the station. For instance, if it concerns an installation with a capacity of more than 100 000
tonnes, an EIA is obligatory. If the installation has a capacity of between 5 000 and 100 000 tonnes, there
is an obligation to carry out a screening to see if an EIA is necessary. For installations with a capacity
under 5 000 tonnes no screening is necessary.

The Czech Republic has to fully implement the EIA Directive by the time of accession at the latest.
However, according to information provided by the country, the EIA Directive has already been transposed
and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN ECE) Convention dealing with
transboundary impact assessment of projects and plans (Espoo) ratified. Therefore a transboundary
consultation on projects potentially having effects on the environment of other states would normally
already need to be carried out now and comments of the affected state taken into account in preparing the
EIA statement and final decision.

The Community legislation on water protection is mainly based on the Water Framework Directive (2).
Article 7 of the Directive requires, inter alia, the establishment of protected areas for the abstraction of
drinking water by the end of 2004. Since the management will be co-ordinated for the whole river basin,
transboundary issues need to be addressed in this context.
In other words, the Czech and German
Authorities will have to discuss and agree whether the respective area becomes a transboundary drinking
water protected area. However, this obligation under the Water Framework Directive can only be enforced
by the Commission after the Accession of the Czech Republic and after the deadline in the Directive has
in particular the Groundwater Directive (3), did not
expired. Previous Community legislation on water,
provide for the establishment of groundwater protected areas. However, it requires the prior authorisation
of, e.g. underground storage tanks.

The Commission has been informed that the issue raised by the Honourable Member in his Written
Question has already been the subject of bilateral discussions between Germany and the Czech Republic in
the Commission of Border Waters between the two countries. Such discussions should continue in the
framework of bilateral agreements between the Czech Republic and Germany.

The Commission is monitoring closely that the commitments made by the Czech Republic and the other
acceding Countries in the accession negotiations are being respected.

(1) Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain

public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2) Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of

priority substances in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L 331, 15.12.2001.

(3) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by

certain dangerous substances, OJ L 20, 26.1.1980.

(2004/C 78 E/0629)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3576/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU Identity document for the disabled

Some 37 million citizens of the EU (cid:1) or ten per cent of the population (cid:1) suffer from some kind of
disability. European Year of People with Disabilities which ends in a few weeks’ time should provide a
fresh impetus and achieve practical results in the fight for the equal treatment of disabled EU citizens so as
to enable them to participate fully in all areas of life in future.

C 78 E/596

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

One step in this direction would be the introduction of a Europe-wide identity document for the disabled
guaranteeing facilities and privileges regardless of nationality and making them readily available to all
disabled persons. In my Written Question E-2173/02 (1) of 18 July 2002 I already pointed to the need for
such an identity document for the disabled.

Since each Member State is free to determine the scope of the facilities and privileges accorded to the
disabled, a uniform EU identity document for the disabled is needed. It should guarantee each disabled
citizen of the Union the same rights in each country.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) Has the EU already developed initial ideas about the introduction of an identity document for the

disabled which is valid throughout the EU?

(cid:1) If so, will it say what these ideas are?

(cid:1) If not, does it not agree that an identity document for the disabled which is valid throughout the EU

should be introduced?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the reply it gave to his earlier written question
E-2173/02 (1). As is clearly stated therein, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the decision
concerning the definition of disability and thus eligibility for disability cards is taken at national level.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 257.

(2004/C 78 E/0630)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3580/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: EU working time legislation

Further to its 15 October answer to my written question E-2611/03 (1), when did the Commission issue
the two invitations to tender for a study on the consequences of the judgment of the Court of Justice in
the SIMAP case (2)?

Why did it wait almost two and a half years before issuing the invitation to tender?

Does it believe such a completed study would have been useful for the preparation of its Communication
on working time which is due by the end of 2003, and which it has already indicated will address the
implications of the SIMAP judgment?

What views were presented by the Irish Government’s representative at the meeting of national experts
referred to by the Commission in its answer to written question E-0535/03 (3)?

Have any approaches been made to the Commission by the Irish Government requesting a possible Irish
‘derogation’ from the scope of Directive 2000/34/EC (4) in relation to junior doctors? What is or would be
the Commission’s response to such a request?

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 187.
(2)

Judgment of the Court of 3 October in case C-303/98, Sindicato de Medicos de Asistencia Publica (SIMAP) and
Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana.

(3) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.
(4) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000, p. 41.