WRITTEN QUESTION E-0009/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of Netherlands exports of radar detectors by exempting them from a domestic ban.
Date: 2004-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, export, fraud, national law, road traffic, speed control, vehicle parts

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/147

(2004/C 84 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0009/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Protection of Netherlands exports of radar detectors by exempting them from a domestic ban

1.
Is the Commission aware that since 1 January 2004 it has been prohibited in the Netherlands to
possess, purchase, store or produce radar detectors warning drivers exceeding the speed limit in good time
that their speed is being recorded by unmanned cameras or police mobile speed traps?

Is the Commission also aware that where it can be shown that the equipment referred to in

2.
paragraph 1 is intended for sale in other EU Member States it is exempt from the ban?

Is it usual for EU Member States to protect the export to other Member States of products banned on

3.
the domestic market as undesirable?

Do other EU Member States that apply speed limits not see the possession and use of radar detectors

4.
as a problem? Is legislation banning them in force or in preparation in other EU Member States?

5. Will this problem not arise again soon if the radar detector is followed up by the free downloading
of speed traps via the Internet and the use of a GPS locator warning drivers when they are within
500 metres of a speed trap?

Is this situation prompting the Commission to discuss with the Member States ways of harmonising

6.
the enforcement of speed limits within the EU?

Source: De Volkskrant, 27.12.2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Netherlands notified the Commission of the draft law prohibiting the possession of certain detectors of
radar speed traps. In the Netherlands, and several other Member States, users of such equipment are liable
to severe penalties which can include confiscation of the vehicle. The Commission considers that the ban is
justified in this case for reasons of road safety. Excessive speed is one of the main causes of road accidents,
and is to blame for almost half the fatalities.

According to information available to the Commission, not all Member States have adopted laws
prohibiting radar detectors. It is therefore understandable that,
in the absence of harmonised rules at
Community level, the national
legislation of a Member State does not prohibit the manufacture of
appliances not intended for use on its territory.

Cases of States prohibiting the use of radar detectors or other products, but not their manufacture, are not
isolated. There is nothing to prevent Member States which prohibit the use of such appliances on their
territory permitting their manufacture with a view to marketing them in States where their use is
permitted.

States which have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the use of radar detectors include Belgium,
Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Finland and Sweden. The penalties for infringements vary widely,
however.

New means of countering speed detection equipment appear regularly on the market. Such appliances are
often available over the Internet from retailers based in third countries, which can circumvent the national
legislation, in particular by recommending that their product be used for a purpose other than avoiding

C 84 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

police controls. Nevertheless, speed detectors are also becoming increasingly sophisticated, and the
penalties for fraudsters increasingly severe. If a radar detector is discovered, the consequences must be such
that they act as a deterrent in the long term.

On 21 October 2003 the Commission adopted Recommendation C(2003) 3861 on enforcement in the
field of road safety. Amongst other things, the Recommendation invites the Member States to penalise
infringements with effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions and also to impose sanctions on acts
aimed at hindering or undermining the enforcement of road safety rules. The Commission undertakes to
draw up a report on the implementation of the Recommendation every two years and to submit a
proposal for a Directive if the measures prove insufficient.

(2004/C 84 E/0186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0010/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Lower levels of protection against BSE infection in beef from America in the EU compared with

Japan, Russia and other countries

1.
Can the Commission confirm that of the 500 000 tonnes of beef imported into the EU each year
800 tonnes come from the United States and Canada and that these imports are restricted to beef from
cattle not contaminated with growth hormones?

2.
Does the Commission anticipate that imports of US and Canadian beef into the EU will rise sharply
once beef is guaranteed hormone-free, or is this unlikely because of price and quality considerations or
other factors?

3.
Is the Commission aware that the discovery of mad cow disease (BSE) in Washington state has
prompted Japan, Russia, China, South Korea, Mexico, Argentina and other countries to impose a blanket
import ban on US beef?

4. Why have the EU’s BSE prevention measures been restricted since 1999 to a ban on the import of
brains and spinal columns of cattle slaughtered in the United States and why has the EU not yet introduced
the more far-reaching measures in force in other countries?

5.
Has the EU particular reasons for taking such a conciliatory attitude to the United States on export
requirements, for example to allow the resumption of European steel exports to the US? Is it possible that
because of economic considerations greater risks are being taken with food safety than would otherwise be
the case?

Under what circumstances and/or on what timescale will the EU import ban be extended in line with

6.
the measures taken by those non-EU countries that believe more stringent measures are required?

Source: De Volkskrant, 27.12.2003.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

1. and 2.
imported from the United States and 350 tonnes from Canada.

According to the Commission’s information, in the year 2002, 250 tonnes of beef have been