WRITTEN QUESTION P-1189/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission. Penalties for the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges.
C 26 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 income, while in other countries it is at least 10 % lower. In view of the low birth rate in several EU countries and the advisability of ensuring that similar conditions apply to all citizens in this category, does the Commission agree that it it is necessary to propose harmonising in a downwards direction the tax levied on the incomes of single persons throughout the European Union? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (24 May 2000) The Commission would point out that, as Community law currently stands, personal direct taxation is essentially a matter for the Member States, which are free to lay down the system of taxation applicable to their residents on the sole condition that they adhere to the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty, such as the prohibition of any discrimination based on nationality. It is true that certain initiatives are currently being considered with a view to introducing a degree of coordination of national legislation concerning the most mobile tax bases, particularly situations involving transnational factors, which are more likely to affect the proper operation of the single market. In keeping with the principle of subsidiarity, however, the Commission does not regard a Community taxation, initiative aimed at harmonisation or even coordination of the progressiveness of personal whether for single persons or families, as a political priority for the moment. Moreover, the solutions which individual Member States have devised on this issue are intimately linked to local political and social traditions, which deserve to be respected. The Commission can only hope that the budgetary discipline imposed on the Member States by their participation in the single currency will bring about a general reduction in the tax burden which may benefit single persons along with other categories of taxpayers. (2001/C 26 E/197) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1189/00 by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission (10 April 2000) Subject: Penalties for the use of toxic products on Spanish oranges In its answer to Written Question P-0357/98 (1), the Commission confirmed that rosin modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol is unacceptable for food use. Given that this substance is used for the processing and conservation of Spanish oranges and that the Commission intended to carry out a detailed study to verify whether penalties should be imposed for the infringement of Community rules, will the Commission say: 1. whether the necessary information has been gathered, now that two years have elapsed, to carry out a full investigation of this alarming problem? 2. what steps it intends to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities for repeated infringement of European Parliament and Council Directive 95/2/EC (2)? 3. what steps it intends to take to ensure proper control of plant protection products so as to prevent the marketing of products harmful to consumers? (1) OJ C 223, 17. 7. 1998, p. 170. (2) OJ L 61, 18. 3. 1995, p. 1. 26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/159 Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (19 May 2000) As a response to the information provided by the Honourable Member in his written question No P-357/98, the Commission took the necessary steps to find out from the Spanish authorities the exact situation and commenced a pre-litigation procedure. The Spanish authorities admitted that they authorised a substance containing resins modified by maleic anhydride and esterified with pentaerythrol for treating citrus fruit after harvest. However, they stated that they believed the substance in question was covered by the provisions of Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (1). As the Commission pointed out that the practice in question contravened the relevant Community legislation, in particular European Parliament and Council Directive No 95/2/EC of 20 February 1995 on food additives other than colours and sweeteners, the Spanish authorities confirmed recently that they would withdraw licences for the controversial substances. The Commission is therefore closing the file. In general, it is the responsibility of Member States to ensure that economic actors are complying with the above legislation. If the Member State fails in this obligation, it is up to the Commission to decide whether to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. (1) OJ L 230, 19. 8. 1991. (2001/C 26 E/198) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1219/00 by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (14 April 2000) Subject: Safety of workers in Spanish tunnels The Community and the Member States are endeavouring to reduce the industrial accident rate to a minimum. However, the measures adopted by the Spanish Government in 1997 to transpose Council Directives 92/57/EEC (1) of 24 June 1992 and 92/104/EEC (2) of 3 December 1992 have given rise to serious inconsistencies posing additional safety risks in civil engineering tunnel works. The above Community Directives on the safety of workers make a clear distinction between extractive industries and civil engineering works. Directive 92/57/EEC relates to the safety of temporary or mobile construction sites, and Articles 1 and 2 explicitly exclude extractive industries. Work on wells, underground earthworks and tunnelsí is listed in Annex II to the Directive (point 6) among the types of work involving risks to workers. Directive 92/104/EEC relates only to safety in the extractive industries, in other words under- ground or opencast mines. Prompted by the Ministry for the Prime Ministerís Office, the Spanish Government transposed Directive 92/57/EEC quite correctly under Royal Decree 1627/1997, issued on 24 October of that year, laying down minimum safety provisions applicable to civil engineering works, including tunnelling, digging of wells, and other works entailing underground earth movements. Article 1(2) of the Decree expressly excludes extractive industries. However, when it issued Royal Decree 1389/1997 of 5 September 1997, stemming from a proposal from the Ministry for Industry, Energy, and Mining, the Government transposed Directive 92/104/EEC surprisingly inaccurately in that Article 2(4) of the Decree refers not only to the extractive industries, but in addition to all industries carrying out tunnelling or (gallery) driving operations. As a result of these two inconsistent provisions, site managers and other tunnel workers are having to contend with a confused body of mandatory rules and contradictory optional instructions because there is an overlap of responsibilities between authorities that enforce different safety regulations and separate systems of penalties. The fact that substantial amounts are expected to be invested in public works in Spain over the next few years could increase the instances of risk