WRITTEN QUESTION P-0645/04 by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission. Expert advice in the JHA sector.
Date: 2004-02-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Parliament, administration of the Institutions, area of freedom, security and justice, consultancy, interinstitutional relations (EU)

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/441

the ‘horizontal’ Directive 2001/18/EC (1)

Identical
under
thresholds will then be adopted under the sector-based seed legislation in the Management Committee to
ensure consistency, with,
in addition, specific certification requirements as regards GM adventitious
presence in seeds.

in the Regulatory Committee procedure.

(1) 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 repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.

(2004/C 84 E/0513)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0644/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Further information on question concerning portability of supplementary pension rights

In its reply of 19 February 2004 to Question P-0207/04 (1), the Commission stated that it was currently
investigating the scope for the adoption of a binding EU legal act concerning similar minimum provisions
to protect mobile workers in relation to the preconditions for access to occupational pension schemes,
qualification periods, reassessment of inactive entitlements (i.e. the entitlements of people who have left a
scheme but have not yet reached retirement age) and the arrangements for transferring entitlements.

What stage have the considerations and preparations with regard to the substance and feasibility of the
proposal for a directive reached?

What is the Commission’s timetable for the assessment?

When will the Commission submit the proposal for a directive?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

As stated in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question No P-0207/04, the Commission is
currently investigating the potential benefits of adopting a binding EU act establishing minimum
requirements similar to those already in force in a number of Member States.

The Commission will take account of Member States’ experience, drawing on the expertise of the Pensions
Forum. Over the coming months it will collect from the Member States and Pensions Forum experts the
information it needs in order to be able to present a proposal for legislation in autumn 2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0514)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0645/04

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 February 2004)

Subject: Expert advice in the JHA sector

How many expert groups advise the Commission in the JHA sector? What actions have been taken as a
result of their recommendations without reference to the European Parliament?

C 84 E/442

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

About sixty expert groups advise the Commission in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) sector and eleven
more are expected to be created in 2004. These groups consider and exchange information on issues
related to the practical application of Community legislation, discuss on an informal basis preliminary
drafts of legislative proposals or policy documents, bring together interested stakeholders to discuss new
approaches, or support the Commission in the development of Large Scale IT systems. The Parliament is
very often invited to the meetings, and the activities of many of these groups are reported to it.

These groups do not formulate or adopt any formal recommendations and no particular conclusions are
drawn up. Opinions expressed by experts in these groups are not to any extent binding upon the
Commission. However, the Commission takes into account the views or comments expressed by experts as
one source of input in the development of policies and in the preparation of legislative proposals or policy
documents.

(2004/C 84 E/0515)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0653/04

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 March 2004)

Subject: Question E-0760/03 (cid:1) Operating conditions for incineration plants under Regulation (EC)

No 1774/2002

In its answer to the above question, the Commission stated that incineration processes not included under
Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 (1) would be allowed, provided they took into account the animal and human
health and environmental risks involved.

The Commission has since looked at several proposed amendments to Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 that
would allow alternative disposal processes. These specifically are Doc. SANCO/2153/2003 from June
2003, Doc. SANCO/2153/2003, Rev. 5, from September 2003 and Doc. SANCO/2153/2003 Rev. 7.

According to the latest revision, the rules on using animal fat in incineration are now to be removed from
Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 and the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority is awaited.

The constant changes by the Commission have meant that competent national authorities have now
withdrawn licences for certain disposal processes promised in advance to the operators of rendering plants,
resulting in considerable financial losses.

When can the European Food Safety Authority be expected to issue its opinion?

To what extent is this opinion binding on the Commission and when can a binding Commission decision
revising Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 be expected?

To what extent will the European Food Safety Authority and/or the Commission bring the processes into
line with the actual situation, that is by drawing on the proposals for revision in Doc. SANCO/2153/2003
from June 2003 and Doc. SANCO/2153/2003, Rev. 5, from September 2003, as well as the proposal in
Written Question E-0760/03 (2)?

Do the latest developments make it absolutely necessary for licences that were granted by national
authorities on the basis of previous Commission amendment proposals in favour of alternative processes
to be withdrawn?

(1) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 233.