You are on page 1of 2

C 115 E/154 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 16.5.

2002

(2002/C 115 E/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2739/01


by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Pedestrians’ rights

What results have been forthcoming in the Member States from the implementation of the European
Charter of Pedestrians’ Rights?

What legislative steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the rules protecting pedestrians’
rights in public thoroughfares are properly implemented?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Charter of Pedestrians’ Rights was drawn up by the European Parliament in 1988. The Member States
and the authorities in question have sole responsibility for complying with the provisions which concern
them, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

The Community, for its part, has taken a number of measures which are in line with the objectives of the
Charter. It has adopted a number of instruments aimed at reducing polluting emissions (1) and noise
levels (2) of vehicles used in town, from private cars to delivery vehicles, buses and two or three-wheel
vehicles. It has negotiated a proposal for a voluntary agreement (3) on the protection of pedestrians in the
event of a collision with a motor vehicle, a proposal which is currently being examined by Parliament. It
has also revised the criteria for obtaining driving licences (4) with the aim of ensuring that drivers are better
prepared for responsible driving. Moreover, in January 2001, the Commission adopted a programme (5)
which aims to review and prepare Community legislation on air quality. Through its research and
development (R & D) initiatives, it is also promising measures to promote the development of sustainable
mobility policies. An example of this Community support for pioneering towns and cities is embodied in
the ‘Civitas’ (City Vitality Sustainability) project.

The safety of vulnerable road users is an aspect which will also be dealt with in the third action
programme on road safety which will cover the period 2002-2010.

(1) Directive 98/69/EC (light commercial vehicles); Directive 1999/96/EC (heavy vehicles); Directive 97/24/EC (two- or
three-wheel motor vehicles); Directive 98/70/EC (quality of fuels).
(2) Directive 70/157/EEC (last amended by Directive 96/20/EC).
(3) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament < Pedestrian protection:
Commitment by the European automobile industry (COM(2001) 389 final).
(4) Directive 2000/56/EC amending Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences. An annex with more detailed
references is being sent to the Honourable Member and to the Secretariat-General of Parliament.
(5) Clean Air For Europe programme (CAFE).

(2002/C 115 E/159) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2753/01


by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Date stamping of eggs

The 21 days’ use-by dating of eggs in the EU suits conditions south of Denmark where eggs are kept
refrigerated. Sweden has proposed 28 days under refrigeration, but discussion of this proposal by the EU is
dragging on. In Sweden the supporters of the proposal claim that the reason is that a short shelf life
favours the EU countries as this would reduce the opportunity for the USA to export eggs to Europe.

Does the Commission consider that the proposal for 28 days’ date stamping of eggs may be introduced in
the near future?
16.5.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 115 E/155

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Article 3(1) of Council Decision 94/371/EC of 20 June 1994 laying down specific public health conditions
for the putting on the market of certain types of eggs (1) states that eggs must be delivered to the consumer
(sell-by date) within a maximum time limit of 21 days of laying. However, paragraph 2 of this Article
allows a further seven days for the date of minimum durability. In practice, the use-by date for eggs is
therefore already 28 days after laying, the first 21 days of which are for delivery to the consumer and the
last seven for storage by the consumer.

Member States which, at the date of notification of this Decision, applied specific requirements relating to
temperature for transport from one storage to another have been able to maintain these requirements in
compliance with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The Commission takes public health criteria into account both in Community policy and in its relations
with international bodies such as certain Codex Alimentarius Committees and the World Trade
Organisation’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS). There are regular contacts between the United
States and the Commission, and veterinary issues relating to the EU and the US are even being included in
negotiations on an equivalence agreement. The Commission therefore does not agree with the allegations
reported by the Honourable Member concerning measures to protect the market from eggs in shell from
the United States.

(1) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994.

(2002/C 115 E/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2754/01


by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Reduction of the fine on Fléchard

At a meeting of Mr Delors’ cabinet on 7 January 1994 the fine on Fléchard was reduced from
€ 17,6 million to € 3 million.

This reduction in the fine allowed Fléchard to survive and, according to enquiries carried out by the
judicial authorities in Italy, it is said since then to have been involved in large-scale fraudulent transactions
in adulterated butter up to mid-2000.

Can the Commission state the grounds for the decision of 7 January 1994 referred to above?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The so-called Fléchard case has been the subject of thorough examination by the Parliament as well as the
European Court of Auditors. The Commission has, upon requests of these two institutions on numerous
occasions, supplied comprehensive documentation on the case.

The Honourable Member is invited to consult this material, for example the Commission reply of March
2001 to the questionnaire of the Committee on Budgetary Control (document PE 294.418) or the Court of
Auditors presidential letter of 11 May 2000, including the Commission reply, on the Fléchard case.