This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 91999E000421
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 421/99 by Ernesto CACCAVALE Gap in legislation on the risks related to exposure to asbestos for workers in the sea transport sector
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 421/99 by Ernesto CACCAVALE Gap in legislation on the risks related to exposure to asbestos for workers in the sea transport sector
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 421/99 by Ernesto CACCAVALE Gap in legislation on the risks related to exposure to asbestos for workers in the sea transport sector
EÜT C 341, 29.11.1999, p. 109
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 421/99 by Ernesto CACCAVALE Gap in legislation on the risks related to exposure to asbestos for workers in the sea transport sector
Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0109
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/99 by Ernesto Caccavale (UPE) to the Commission (1 March 1999) Subject: Gap in legislation on the risks related to exposure to asbestos for workers in the sea transport sector Article 1(2) of Directive 83/477/EEC(1) on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work, which is a follow-up to Directive 80/1107/EEC(2) on aspects related to safety at work, explicitly excludes workers in the sea transport and air transport sectors from the directive's scope, although Member States still have the right to apply or introduce laws, regulations or administrative provisions ensuring greater protection of workers. Although the Italian Government has adopted the Community Directive, it has not provided for regulation of the situation concerning workers excluded from the above-mentioned legislation, thus leaving a gap in legislation in this field, and depriving the sectors in question of the necessary protection. Asbestos is an extremely harmful substance and regrettably there have already been cases of asbestos-related illnesses, and even deaths, among sea and air transport staff in Italy and other European countries. Given the above, would the Commission state: 1. why sea and air transport workers were excluded from the aforementioned EEC Directive concerning the protection of workers exposed to asbestos; 2. why measures were not subsequently taken to fill this gap in legislation, as a result of which the health of some workers is in grave danger; 3. whether it would not agree that this gap in legislation left by both the Community institutions and the Italian Government constitutes a clear breach of the general principle of non-discrimination in what, in this case, is an extremely important area, namely the protection of health and safety at work. Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (6 April 1999) Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to asbestos at work(3), which is an individual directive within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 80/1107/EEC of 27 November 1980 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to chemical, physical and biological agents at work(4), provides for the exclusion of sea and air transport, which were already covered by specific international rules. In 1990 the Council adopted Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work(5). This Directive, which is an individual directive under framework 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(6), applies to all sectors of activity, private and public, with very specific exemptions pertaining to certain government activities. This means that as from 1991, when all forms of asbestos were classified as carcinogenic at Community level, sea and air transport have been "de facto" covered by Community legislation on the protection of workers. With a view to following up the conclusions of the Council of 7 April 1998 on the protection of workers from the risks linked to asbestos exposure(7) the Commission is currently examining the existing measures to determine whether there is a need for additional rules. (1) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983, p. 25. (2) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980, p. 8. (3) OJ L 263, 24.9.1983. (4) OJ L 327, 3.12.1980. (5) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990. (6) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989. (7) OJ C 142, 7.5.1998.