WRITTEN QUESTION P-0340/04 by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the European Community.
Date: 2004-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, communications profession, exchange of information, free movement of workers, infringement procedure (EU), right of establishment

C 84 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

How can the ESFA give assurances on the safety of food if it relies upon the experiments conducted by
companies with a vested interest in the product?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

At the request of the Commission, the European Food Security Authority (EFSA), an independent risk
assessment body, issued a scientific opinion on the genetically modified (GM) NK 603 maize where it
concluded that it is as safe as conventional maize and, therefore, that its import for processing for food
and feed use is unlikely to have an adverse effect on human or animal health. Approval of the maize is the
responsibility of the Commission pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients (1) and to Directive 2001/
18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the
environment of genetically modified organisms (2).

The Regulation provides that the applicant submits the necessary information to carry out the safety
evaluation. This is a standard approach to product authorisation. In preparing its opinion of 25 November
2003 (3), the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms which is composed of highly qualified
in addition to the documentation provided by the applicant, access to
independent experts had,
independent, peer-reviewed studies which were taken into account in reaching its conclusion and which
are referenced in the opinion.

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(3) http://www.efsa.eu.int/pdf/gmo/opinion_gmo_02_final_en.pdf

(2004/C 84 E/0244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0340/04

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the

European Community

On 4 December 2002 question P-3549/02 (1) brought to the Commission’s attention the case of Mr Claude
Marie Jenacolas, a French citizen and professional journalist, who was denied the opportunity of acting as
editor-in-chief of a number of magazines in Italy on the basis of Italian legislation concerning the work of
professional journalists.

The questioner asked the Commission whether it did not consider that Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February
1963 (the Italian law establishing the professional register of journalists) was incompatible with Article 39
of the EC Treaty, which provides for the free movement of workers within the Community.

On 9 April 2003 the Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou, after a provisional preliminary answer, gave a
supplementary answer saying that she had asked the Italian authorities for clarification of how the
legislation in question works and (cid:1) more importantly (cid:1) that the case had been registered as a suspected
infringement of Community law.

In view of the time which has elapsed since then, can the Commission say what further action it has taken
on this suspected infringement of Community law?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 122.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/201

Answer given by Ms Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Under the procedure for dealing with an assumed contravention of Community law (No 2003/2004), the
Commission has written to the Italian authorities on several occasions asking how this Italian legislation
works, in particular with regard to the obligation for journalists to be entered on occupational registers
and the conditions for this, in particular for journalists from other Member States.

However, no reply has yet been received from the Italian authorities, so a final letter will be sent shortly.

(2004/C 84 E/0245)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/04

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Restrictions on the opening up of the Belgian railways market

According to reports, the national railway company of Belgium, Belgian Railways, is enabling train drivers
to change to another railway company that operates trains in Belgium. The driver’s licence is not
immediately transferred to the new employer, with the result that it loses its validity and the driver has to
take another examination. On the other hand, Belgian railway legislation apparently does not allow the
establishment and recognition of firms which are not themselves railway operators, but supply railway
staff with a safety function (train drivers, shunters, guards) to other railway companies.

Is the Commission aware of these restrictions on the opening up of the market, and does it consider them
to be compatible with European legislation in this area?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of these restrictions, which vary from country to country depending on the
national legislation in force. In some cases, they could be in breach of current Community legislation and
the regulatory body provided for in the first railway package (1) (cid:1) in particular Article 30 of Directive
2001/14/EC, which should have been transposed into national law by all the Member States by 15 March
2003 (cid:1) is responsible for intervening in the event of a complaint.

More generally, the second railway package (2) deals with the issue of driver certification, specifically in the
Directive on rail safety for which the Honourable Member is rapporteur. However, the creation of a
Community framework for driver certification goes beyond safety issues; other areas such as inter-
operability, the right to work, the mobility of workers between undertakings, as well as recognition of
training and work experience must also be dealt with. In view of this complexity (cid:1) highlighted during the
debate on the second package (cid:1) and in accordance with the indication given at the time of the Council’s
in March 2003, the Commission has drawn up a framework Directive for the
political agreement