Anda di halaman 1dari 2

C 340 E/196 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 4.12.

2001

2. special studies involving groups of volunteers, examining isolated independent environmental and
behavioral risk factors;

3. interventional study to assess preventive measures with standardised diagnostic methods, involving
passengers in experimental well-controlled studies.

This research programme is due to be launched in the summer of 2001.

The Commission will not fail to forward the results of this work to the Parliament, once completed.
However, in the current status of scientific knowledge, the Commission does not intend to propose a new
regulation in this matter.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 132.

(2001/C 340 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1201/01


by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Harmonisation of minimum standards for personal protective equipment

1. Are employers obliged, following the publication of Council Directive 89/686/EEC (1) in the Official
Journal and the listing of sources in the equipment safety law, to make personal protective equipment
meeting these minimum standards available to their employees? Is there an indirect obligation for the latter
to wear this equipment for reasons of liability?

2. Following the publication of these standards, are employers still free to determine on their own
authority what kind of work and protective clothing employees should wear?

3. Is the labour protection law affected by the minimum standards?

4. The regulation on workplaces excludes road vehicles in public transport from the scope of its
provisions. Could the minimum standards for personal protective equipment likewise be excluded?

(1) OJ L 399, 30.12.1989, p. 18.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 89/656/EEC of 30 November 1989 on the minimum health and safety
requirements for the use by workers of personal protective equipment at the workplace (1) provides that
‘personal protective equipment must comply with the relevant Community provisions on design and
manufacture with respect to safety and health’, i.e. with Directive 89/686/EEC as amended on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective equipment (2).

Article 4 of Directive 89/656/EEC also sets out the conditions of use of personal protective equipment. In
particular, paragraph 6 stipulates that it must be supplied free of charge by the employer but leaves it up
to Member States whether to provide ‘that the worker be asked to contribute towards the cost of certain
personal protective equipment in circumstances where use of the equipment is not exclusive to the
workplace’.

In accordance with Article 13 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (3), ‘it shall be the
responsibility of each worker to take care as far as possible of his own safety and health and that of other
persons affected by his acts or omissions at work in accordance with his training and the instructions
given by his employer’.
4.12.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 340 E/197

To this end, workers must, for example, ‘make correct use of the personal protective equipment supplied
to them’.

In the ‘new approach’ directives, which include Directive 89/686/EEC, the application of European
standards is voluntary.

The directives based on Article 137 (ex Article 118A) of the EC Treaty contain minimum requirements
which must be transposed into national law in the Member States.

No. The only exclusions from the scope of Directive 89/656/EEC are those given in Article 2(2). These
include personal protective equipment for means of road transport.

(1) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.


(2) Council Directive 89/686/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to personal protective equipment (OJ L 399, 30.12.1989) as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of
22 July 1993 (OJ L 220, 30.8.1993), Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993 (OJ L 276, 9.11.1993) and
Directive 96/58/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 3 September 1996 (OJ L 236, 18.9.1996).
(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.

(2001/C 340 E/226) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1218/01


by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Council

(11 April 2001)

Subject: Integrated policy against crime

I am referring to the Council’s reply to my Written Question E-3889/00 (1). The Council establishes that
the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam raise potential problems, related to the division of responsibility
between the first and third pillar. Does the Council agree that this ambiguous situation should be clarified
at the political level, before serious problems arise between the services involved and before other damage
is done to the detriment of the image of the European Union and the interests of its citizens?

If so, what initiative does the Council propose?

Is my interpretation of the Council’s answer to my first and second questions correct when I conclude that
the tasks of Eurojust encompass all types of crime, including judicial cooperation in matters concerning
criminal investigations regarding the financial interests of the EC, so called EC fraud? This would be the
constitutional consequence of the creation of the third pillar and it would avoid duplication of effort.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 174.

Reply

(20 July 2001)

In its reply to the Honourable Member’s previous question on the same subject (1) the Council confirmed
that difficulties could arise from the Treaties’ division of responsibility between the European Union’s first
and third pillars; it pointed out that this state of affairs was the result of the political decisions that had led
to the Treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam. The Council seeks to ensure that the Treaties in their present
form are complied with.

With regard to the tasks of Eurojust, it may be noted that the initiative of the Portuguese Republic, the
French Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption of
a Council Decision setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious organised crime
was submitted to the European Parliament for its opinion. Article 5(f) of the Decision includes among
Eurojust’s responsibilities ‘the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, as defined in the
Convention of 26 July 1995 and in the Protocols thereto of 29 November 1996, 19 June 1997 and
27 September 1997’. Article 16, which deals with the relations between Eurojust and its partners, states