WRITTEN QUESTION No. 437/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN Interpretation and implementation of Directive 92/42/EEC
29. 11. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 341/113 In its opinion 2/91 of 19 March 1993, the Court of Justice considered that ‘the conclusion of ILO Convention No 170 is a matter which falls within the joint competence of the Member States and the Community’. The Court also ruled out the possibility of exclusive external competence being founded on internal rules constituting minimum standards (which is generally the case for the Directives relating to asbestos), at least when the international standard covering the same matter is also a minimum requirement (like, for example, Conventions Nos 162 and 170). The Court also emphasised that ‘when it appears that the subject-matter of an agreement or contract falls in part within the competence of the Community and in part within that of the Member States, it is important to ensure that there is a close association between the institutions of the Community and the Member States both in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the obligations entered into’. Drawing the appropriate lessons from this opinion, on 12 January 1994 the Commission presented a proposal for a Council Decision (1) on the exercise of the Community’s external competence at international labour conferences in cases falling within the joint competence of the Community and its Member States. Certain Member States have ratified ILO conventions on matters coming under joint competence (five so far in the case of Convention No 162). The Council has not adopted the Commission’s proposal, which has not been discussed. The Commission still wishes to find an effective solution within the framework of the Court of Justice’s opinion. (1) COM(94) 2 final. (1999/C 341/158) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/99 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission (4 March 1999) Subject: Interpretation and implementation of Directive 92/42/EEC Which criteria or preconditions determine whether the ‘considerations relating to consequences of primary importance for the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 92/43/ EEC (1) apply to a given rail transport project? This question follows on from my Question of 25 July 1998 which Mrs Bjerregaard answered on behalf of the Commission (E-2638/98) (2). However, she failed to provide an answer to the above question or rather prompted it in the first place. (1) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. (2) OJ C 118, 29. 4. 1999, p. 110. Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (1 April 1999) In its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question 2638/98, the Commission has already given its view, and explained that the question of ‘beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment’ can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are no general formulae or criteria additional to those already set out in Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and the general environmental advantages of trains over other forms of transport cannot displace the need for project and site specific analysis. Only the Court of justice can give a definitive interpretation of the Directive, and the Commission regrets that it cannot give more guidance to the Honourable Member than that contained in its previous answer