WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/04 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Free movement between Greece and the rest of the EU.
Date: 2004-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, case-law (EU), confiscation of property, free movement of persons, motor car, tax harmonisation, tax system, tax-free allowance, vehicle registration, vehicle tax

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/179

Commercial instruments for measuring NO concentrations, either outdoors or in the workplace, are
4.
available with detection limits of approximately 5 parts per billion (ppb) and response times of the order
of minutes. Additionally, passive samplers for NO, often used to obtain data at a large number of sites, are
available with a lower limit dosage of 0,07 ppm-h. The joint World Health Organisation-International
Labour Organisation (WHO-ILO) publication ‘Environmental Health Criteria 188. (cid:1) Nitrogen Oxides
(Second Edition)’, produced within the framework of the International Programme on Chemical Safety
(IPCS), provides a complete overview of the commercially available methodology for the analysis and
sampling of NO. The draft CEN standard pr-EN 14211 ‘Ambient air quality (cid:1) Measurement method for
the determination of the concentration of nitrogen dioxide and nitrogen monoxide by chemiluminiscence’
and ISO 7996: 1985 Ambient air determinations of nitrogen oxides, provide harmonised measuring
methodology. The Commission will further assess the practicality for workplace measurements and the
conformity with the requirements of EN 482.

including one animal study carried out

The existing IOELV, of 25 ppm, for nitrogen monoxide was established in 1991 (5). Since then, new
5.
scientific data,
in 1995, have become available and were
interpreted as indicating lung damage at exposures as low as 0,5 ppm, though these results have been
evaluated by SCOEL as somewhat inconsistent and the genotoxic potential of NO in vivo as remaining
uncertain.

Directive 98/24/EC imposes the obligation on the Commission to establish indicative exposure limit

6.
values, when it has in its possession all the elements allowing it.

The SCOEL composition, together with the rules of appointment and its tasks are included in the

7.
Commission Decision of 12 July 1995 mentioned above.

8.
According to the procedure followed by SCOEL, the draft Recommendation for NO has been sent
out to the contact points including industrial associations for a six month period for comments. All the
comments received have been carefully considered and the text of the draft recommendation has been
changed accordingly.

Furthermore, the Commission submitted the revised recommendation to the tripartite Advisory Committee
and the Safety and Health Commission for the Mining and other Extractive Industries (SHCMOEI) for an
opinion. The Commission is still evaluating their comments.

(1) Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks
related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
89/391/EEC), OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.

(2) 95/320/EC: Commission Decision 95/320/EC of 12 July 1995 setting up a Scientific Committee for Occupational

Exposure Limits to Chemical Agents, OJ L 188, 9.8.1995.

(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/health_safety/publicat/sum_89_nitrogen_monoxide.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/health_safety/publicat/sum_89_nitrogen_monoxide.pdf

(4) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ P 196, 6.8.1967.
(5) Commission Directive 91/322/EEC of 29 May 1991 on establishing indicative limit values by implementing Council
Directive 80/1107/EEC on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and
biological agents at work, OJ L 177, 5.7.1991.

(2004/C 88 E/0187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Free movement between Greece and the rest of the EU

Articles 14 and 18 of the EC Treaty safeguard free movement within the single market. As is clear from
the remarks of the Advocate General Mr G. Cosmas in case C-378/97, the provisions of these two articles
of the Treaty are not identical at the semantic level, but mutually complementary.

C 88 E/180

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In view of this, it is difficult to understand why Greece continues to view as smuggling the circulation in
Greece of a car driven by an EU citizen who is a permanent resident of another EU Member State, where
he has lawfully bought a car for private use with number-plates of the Member State in which he has
chosen to live. In international law the car is a piece of moveable property whose legal status is subject to
the laws of the place where it has been registered by being entered in the records, as is also the case with
other categories of means of transport. In spite of this, very often vehicles with Community number-plates
are held in Greece, their owners are imprisoned and fines are also imposed on them. The owners of cars
with Community number-plates argue that the immediate seizure of a vehicle in Greece is inconsistent
with the wording of Article 129(5) of the new Greek Customs Code, which stipulates that Community
vehicles may (cid:1) before the registration tax owed has been ascertained (cid:1) be sent back to the other Member
States of the European Union or imported into non-EU countries. In this case, a motorist may not take his
private car to another Member State outside Greece, since the Greek public authority will already have
taken steps to confiscate it.

In the Commission’s opinion, is Greece is contravening Articles 14 and 18 of the Treaty, with the result
that private cars with Community number-plates are being seized and Community citizens who use them
inside Greece are being imprisoned? Could these citizens perhaps claim damages, on the basis of
Community legislation, since they have very clearly suffered injury as a result of this practice by the Greek
authorities? Can an EU citizen have different residences in different EU Member States and be able to travel
freely from one to the other, without continually having to make calculations concerning how many days
he has been in one EU Member State and how many in the other? What is the view of the Commission on
the creation of a Community licence-plate which would be mutually recognised by all the Member States,
as is already the case, for example, with the Community driving licence, which (under Directive 91/439/
EEC (1)) is valid in all the Member States?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his previous Written Question
No E-3819/03 (1) concerning the importation into Greece of motor vehicles by EU citizens, in particular
Greek nationals, residing in another Member State.

In its judgments, the European Court of Justice has recognised the principle that a State is liable where
there is a breach of Community law and must provide reparation irrespective of the state agency whose
act or omission has led to the infringement (see, for example, the judgments of 19 November 1991 in
Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and of 5 March 1996 in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93
Brasserie du Pêcheur).

Citizens of the European Union who respect the conditions laid down by Community law may move freely
in Member States and are free to choose a residence there. Community law does not prevent them having
several residences in different Member States.

Although, in principle, it is possible to introduce a single European number plate, a number of conditions
would have to be met first, e.g. harmonisation of the different rules on tax and vehicle inspections and the
establishment of the necessary links between the registration authorities and the police with a view to
combating crime and enforcing road-traffic rules. These conditions have not been met and the Commission
does not intend to introduce a proposal to that effect. However, at the end of 2003 it presented a proposal
for a regulation (2) intended to provide access to certain data in the Schengen Information System for the
authorities responsible for registering vehicles. This proposal continues the policy that was developed by
Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April on the registration documents for vehicles (3).

Moreover, having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Case C-262/99 and to the
Greek authorities’ maintenance of their practices, on 25 March 2004 the Commission initiated proceedings
against Greece before the Court for continuing to impose disproportionate sanctions, e.g. in cases where
persons presumed to be permanently resident in Greece are alleged to be smuggling, so that it is infringing

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/181

Article 90 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions
within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from
another (4), which rule out the imposition of additional registration charges on temporarily imported
vehicles.

(1) See page 156.
(2) COM(2003) 510 final.
(3) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999.
(4) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2004/C 88 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/04

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Ansaldo-Breda: infringement of laws protecting workers from exposure to asbestos

Ansaldo-Breda is an Italian rolling stock manufacturer. From 1987 to 1991, work was carried out at its
plant in Pistoia to replace the Eternit covering on the roof, to bring the workplace into line with European
health and safety legislation.

These works were carried out without interrupting the normal production process, issuing the workforce
with protective equipment or informing them of the real risk of exposure to asbestos dust. Employees
report that, at the time these works took place, they were obliged to clean the workbenches every day with
compressed air jets, thus recirculating the asbestos dust that had fallen from the roof covering.

This has resulted in recent years in a mortality rate for mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos, that is much higher than the national average. Consequently, the Pistoia employees
concerned have obtained recognition that they are suffering from an industrial disease and are entitled,
under Italian law 257/92, to receive various pensions, allowances and other benefits, although only in
respect of the period up to 1990.

In actual fact, however, some renovation work was carried out after 1991 and is still in progress, although
there is no provision for the employees who are still going about their business at the plant to receive
comparable compensation for the period from 1991 to the present.

The Italian judiciary is inquiring into this question, and it appears from their investigation that the local
health authority has checked levels of exposure to asbestos and considers them to be acceptable at present;
this finding would seem to be at odds, however, with the fact that twenty employees have died from
mesothelioma in recent years.

In view of the European Union’s commitment to protecting the health and safety of workers, as shown in
Parliament’s resolution of 23 October 2002 on a new Community strategy on health and safety at work
(2002-2006) (1) and the Council’s decision of 22 July 2003 setting up a European committee to monitor
workers’ health (2):

1. Does the Commission consider that Article 137 of the EC Treaty, and more specifically Directive 83/

477/EEC (3), transposed in Legislative Decree 277/91, have been infringed?

2. Does the Commission consider that Directive 2003/18/EC (4) has been infringed?

3.

Is the Commission aware of the works the firm has carried out to remove the asbestos, and can it
state how long those works took, whether the work is still in progress, whether the work was carried
out in safe conditions and whether the employees have received adequate information about them?