You are on page 1of 2

C 364 E/116 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20.12.

2001

Has provision been made for any ancillary measures to assist road hauliers in adapting to the new
circumstances, to train police forces in the necessary specialist knowledge and to aid the General Chemical
Laboratory in identifying, sorting, classifying and registering hazardous goods transported by road?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2001)

The transport of dangerous goods by road in the Community is regulated by Council Directive 94/55/EC
of 21 November 1994 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States with regard to the
transport of dangerous goods by road (1), as amended, which introduced harmonised rules for the transport
of dangerous goods between the Member States as well as in national transport within the Member States.

In the context of Directive 94/55/EC and in order to further improve the level of safety in the transport of
dangerous goods and to ensure a sufficient level of checks to be carried out in a harmonised way, the
Council adopted on 6 October 1995 Directive 95/50/EC on uniform procedures for checks on the
transport of dangerous goods by road (2).

Furthermore an important role in the safety of transport of dangerous goods play the safety advisers,
appointed according to Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 June 1996 on the appointment and vocational
qualification of safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway (3).

In Greece no national legislation on transport of dangerous goods existed prior to Community legislation.
The whole system of transport of dangerous goods was introduced in Greece with delays and there has
been infringement proceedings against Greece. Now most of the legislation is in force and its practical
implementation is on its way.

The Commission is aware of the complexity of the legislation and its enforcement and the resources
needed for it, but at the same time this is a matter for the Member States need to address. In fact, there are
no possibilities to this kind of specific actions in the limited transport safety budget.

On the other hand the Commission is confident that especially the recent implementation in Greece of
Directives 95/50/EC on road checks (4) and 96/35/EC on safety advisers (5) and the practical action
connected with them will in the near future improve the situation.

(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.


(2) OJ L 249, 17.10.1995.
(3) OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, supplemented by Directive 2000/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 April
2000 on minimum examination requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail
or inland waterway (OJ L 118, 19.5.2000).
(4) Implemented in Greece by Presidential Decree No 256/99 (Government Gazette I 209 of 11.10.1999).
(5) Implemented in Greece by Joint Ministerial Decision No 64834-5491 on the transposition into Greek legislation of
Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 August 1996 on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers
for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway, and Directive 2000/18/EC of 17 April
2000 on minimum examination requirements of these safety advisers, 13 October 2000.

(2001/C 364 E/127) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1455/01


by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Studies grant

What support has the Commission given to the Institute for Transition Economics? From which budget
line? Which other institutes and establishments also received funds in the same year?
20.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 364 E/117

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission


(26 July 2001)

In 1997 the Stockholm Institute for Transitional Economics was awarded a contract (following a tender
procedure) for assistance to the Russia-Europe Centre for Economic Policy. The contract is funded from the
budget line B7-520 (‘Assistance to partner States in eastern Europe and central Asia’) and it has a total
value of € 2 149 824. A further contract was awarded in 1999 with total value of € 2 548 668. Lastly,
a contract for € 123 244 was awarded last year.

In 2000, the Institute also received a payment of € 440 700 from budget line B6-641.

Support from budget line B7-520 for activities in eastern Europe and central Asia finances a very wide
variety of projects and schemes, and over 500 contracts with consultants, experts, authorities and
institutions are involved for the period covered by the Stockholm Institute contract.

(2001/C 364 E/128) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1456/01


by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(17 May 2001)

Subject: Seals

What support has the Commission given to projects concerned with the Mediterranean monk seal?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission


(16 July 2001)

Under the Habitats directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) Member States have to take the requisite measures to establish
a system of strict protection in order to ensure a favourable status of conservation of the monk seal
(Monachus monachus). Moreover, they must designate sites which will form part of the Natura 2000
ecological network.

The Commission is certainly aware that the Community has particular responsibility for this priority
species, in view of the proportion of the natural range which falls within the territory of the Community.

Projects regarding this species may be submitted for Community cofinancing, according to relevant
existing rules (a list for some of the projects or studies directly related to the Mediterranean area is sent
direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat). Upon the outcomes of these projects,
the Commission tries to build new approaches aimed at improving the status of conservation of the
species.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 364 E/129) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1457/01


by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(17 May 2001)

Subject: Disciplinary action against staff

If the Commission will list all cases in which staff have faced disciplinary action, together with the actions
taken, amount of time required to reach a conclusion, the nature of the allegation, whether ‘whistleblow-
ing’ activity was involved, and if further investigations were instigated and now concluded.