16.12.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 306/68

1.1

The Committee essentially supports the proposal, but calls on the Commission to take account of the three reservations raised and to amend the text of the recitals accordingly. It hopes to see the swift approval of the proposal by the European Parliament and the Council.

2.1.1

The purpose of this proposal is to undertake a codification of Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work (second individual Directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC). The new Directive will supersede the various acts incorporated in it (1); according to the Commission, this proposal fully preserves the content of the acts being codified and hence does no more than bring them together with only such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.2.1

Exposure to asbestos remains a major risk factor for various occupational categories, particularly in the construction sector. It is generally considered that many tens of millions of tons of asbestos were used in Europe during the 20th century. Despite the EU's asbestos ban in 1999, exposure to asbestos will continue for decades, mainly due to the number of buildings containing the substance. Moreover, waste management and the scrapping of a wide range of equipment containing asbestos can also pose risks of exposure. Similarly, the existence of a second-hand market for a wide range of articles containing asbestos is a cause for concern.

2.2.2

The Committee has, on several occasions, examined the issues raised by the protection of workers exposed to asbestos. One example worth citing is the own-initiative opinion adopted on 24 March 1999 (2).

2.2.3

The first directive designed to protect workers from the risks of asbestos exposure dates back to 1983. It was amended on a number of occasions in order to extend its scope, strengthen prevention measures and reduce the limit values for exposure.

2.2.4

These different amendments could cause problems for those affected by the legislation. The present codification proposal makes it possible to bring together in a single piece of legislation the various provisions currently in force without affecting the content. The proposal does no more than incorporate such formal amendments as are required by the codification exercise itself.

2.2.5

The Committee nevertheless feels that there are some shortcomings in respect of the codification of the recitals. Several of the recitals appearing in previous directives are not included in the codification. In some cases, these omissions represent more than purely editorial changes. They affect fundamental aspects which the EU legislator has judged important to draw to attention to.

2.2.6

This is the case with recital (2) of Directive 2003/18/EC where the EU legislator points out, inter alia, the importance of a preventive approach with regard to substitute fibres for asbestos. This is particularly important so as to ensure that the alternatives used do not pose any health problems.

2.2.7

This also applies to the omission of recital (4) of the same directive, which draws attention to the importance of the Community decision banning the use of chrysotile asbestos with effect from 1 January 2005. This omission is even less justified given the fact that recital (4) of Directive 91/382/EEC has also been omitted. The said recital refers to the importance of the principle of substitution for the prevention of risks associated with dangerous substances. The omission of these two recitals does not seem justified in the light of the European Union's commitment to work for a worldwide ban on asbestos.

2.2.8

This is also the case with recital (15) of Directive 2003/18/EC, which calls for Member States to bring the content of the exposure register and medical records for workers exposed to asbestos into line with that of the records for workers exposed to other carcinogens.

2.2.9

The omission of these recitals seems to go beyond the normal limits for a codification. The EESC feels that recitals of equivalent scope should be included in the proposal so as to clarify the legal scope of the proposed act with regard to these specific points.

2.2.10

A codification must not make any substantial change to the content. Having examined the proposal, the Committee believes that the text in question upholds this principle, subject to the reservations set out above concerning the omission of some recitals. It combines the various provisions in force in a logical manner and makes them clearer, and thus does not pose any major problem.

2.2.11

The Committee believes that the present proposal should be submitted for consultation to the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work in accordance with Council Decision 2003/C 218/01 of 22 July 2003. This consultation should be mentioned in the recitals of the directive in accordance with the practice applied hitherto.

2.2.12

The Committee essentially supports the proposal, but calls on the Commission to take account of the three reservations raised and to amend the text of the recitals accordingly. It hopes to see the swift approval of the proposal by the European Parliament and the Council.