Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-05-09-Speech-3-222"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20070509.21.3-222"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@cs1
"Fru formand, hr. kommissær! Denne betænkning er en god opfølgning på den sidste debat om Euratom-traktatens overordnede karakter førhen, i dag og fremover. Der er tale om en virkelig, specifik og særlig hændelse, der klart understreger, hvorfor vi er nødt til at se på traktaten for at sikre de europæiske borgeres fremtidige sikkerhed i tilfælde af nukleare ulykker. Denne nukleare ulykke og dens sørgelige eftervirkninger for visse personer har bredere følgevirkninger for alle vores borgeres helbred og sikkerhed. Det er naturligvis en styrke, at vores procedure for andragender giver den enkelte mulighed for at gøre os opmærksom på sådanne begivenheder, når EU-institutionerne eller lovgivningen ikke har ydet den ønskede eller forventede bistand. Vores borgere fortæller os, at Euratom-traktaten ikke virker, og vi skal lytte efter. Jeg vil gerne tage Dem tilbage til en arktisk nat i januar 1968, en tid, der stadig var præget af den kolde krig. Historiens kendsgerninger lyder rent faktisk som en international thriller. Et amerikansk B-52-bombefly kommer i vanskeligheder, besætningen kæmper for at komme i sikkerhed, og flyet styrter ned i Grønland med en meget stor mængde våbenberiget plutonium om bord. De fastboende arbejderne ved den amerikanske base i Thule i Grønland tog straks af sted over isen med slædehundehold for at nå frem til det nedstyrtede fly, og amerikanerne var desperate for at nå frem før alle andre. I de efterfølgende uger blev en lang række Thule-arbejdere inddraget i oprydningsarbejdet. De arbejdede ikke under laboratoriebetingelser. De bar ikke beskyttelsesdragter, bortset fra dragter til beskyttelse mod kulden - det tøj, som mange af dem bar, var så stråleforurenet, et det var nødvendigt at destruere det. I de efterfølgende måneder og år blev Thule-arbejderne ramt af en lang række forskellige frygtelige sygdomme, heriblandt hr. Carswell, andrageren i denne sag. Det er en lang historie, og sagen har været ført hele vejen op igennem det danske retssystem, og den har givet anledning til en lang række rapporter, debatter og diskussioner. Vi skal tage stilling til et meget specifikt aspekt i denne saga, nemlig Thule-arbejdernes rettigheder under Rådets direktiv 96/29/Euratom af 13. maj 1996 om grundlæggende sikkerhedsnormer til beskyttelse af befolkningens og arbejdstagernes sundhed mod de farer, som er forbundet med ioniserende stråling. Der er blevet fremført en lang række forskellige juridiske argumenter imod andragerne, og jeg ønsker ikke at kommentere disse i detaljer her, men blot påpege, at der er redegjort herfor i betænkningen, hvor de er grundigt behandlet - spørgsmålet om den tidsmæssige og geografiske anvendelse af traktaten i Grønland og spørgsmålet om anvendelse i forbindelse med militære hændelser. Der var ikke tale om en militær hændelse i forhold til den berørte medlemsstat. Det militære element vedrører et tredjeland, og i overensstemmelse med Domstolens afgørelser gør vi således gældende, at direktivet bestemt kan finde anvendelse. Dette er imidlertid ikke kun et spørgsmål om jura, men først om fremmest om politik, og der kan rent faktisk også henvises til den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention, hvori det fastsættes, at staten har pligt til at træffe passende foranstaltninger med henblik på at beskytte borgernes liv inden for statens retsområde. Det er imidlertid fuldstændig klart, at direktivet sikrer retten til lægetilsyn for overlevende, passende foranstaltninger til overvågning og indgriben - ikke blot statistiske øvelser, som vi har set til dato, men passende klinisk lægetilsyn, der ikke kun er til gavn for de overlevende, men også for alle europæiske borgeres sundhed og sikkerhed i tilfælde af sådanne fremtidige hændelser. Hvis der ikke er mulighed herfor, er det udtryk for, at traktaten ikke fungerer, og derfor er vi nødt til at se på den igen. Jeg er bange for, at jeg også er nødt til at opfordre mine kolleger til at forkaste ændringsforslagene. Nogle er forvirrende, nogle henviser til ikke nærmere angivne hændelser, der ikke er omhandlet i andragendet, og nogle underminerer argumenterne i betænkningen. På vegne af de overlevende fra Thule anbefaler jeg, at De støtter betænkningen i uændret form, idet jeg samtidig håber, at traktaten vil blive ændret på et senere tidspunkt."@da2
". Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Dieser Bericht schließt sich recht gut an die vorhergehende Aussprache an, in der es um eine allgemeine Betrachtung der Vergangenheit, der Gegenwart und der Zukunft des Euratom-Vertrags ging. Wir haben es hier mit einem tatsächlichen, konkreten, individuellen Fall zu tun, der die Notwendigkeit einer Überprüfung des Vertrags ganz deutlich macht, damit die Sicherheit der EU-Bürger im Falle eines atomaren Zwischenfalls künftig geschützt werden kann. Dieser atomare Zwischenfall und seine dramatischen Langzeitfolgen für etliche Personen haben weiter gehende Auswirkungen auf die Gesundheit und Sicherheit all unserer Bürger. Die große Stärke unseres Petitionssystems besteht ja darin, dass uns einzelne Personen auf derartige Fälle aufmerksam machen können, wenn die europäischen Organe oder der Rechtsrahmen nicht die Unterstützung geboten haben, die sie sich gewünscht bzw. erwartet hätten. Unsere Bürger sagen uns, dass der Euratom-Vertrag nicht richtig funktioniert, und wir sollten ihnen Gehör schenken. Ich möchte Sie zurück in eine arktische Nacht im Januar 1968 nehmen, als der Kalte Krieg noch tobte – die Fakten dieser Geschichte hören sich wirklich wie ein internationaler Thriller an. Ein amerikanischer B-52-Bomber gerät in Schwierigkeiten, die Mannschaft bringt sich hastig in Sicherheit und das Flugzeug stürzt mit einer schweren Ladung an waffenfähigem Plutonium über Grönland ab. Einige Bewohner Grönlands, die auf dem US-amerikanischen Stützpunkt Thule arbeiteten, machten sich sofort mit ihren Husky-Schlitten auf den Weg, um über das Eis zu dem abgestürzten Flugzeug zu gelangen. Die Amerikaner versuchten verzweifelt, vor allen anderen am Absturzort anzukommen. In den folgenden Wochen waren viele Arbeitskräfte vom Stützpunkt Thule an den Säuberungsarbeiten beteiligt, die nicht gerade unter Laborbedingungen stattfanden. Die Helfer besaßen keinerlei Schutzkleidung, außer ihren Sachen gegen die Kälte. Die Kleidung, die viele von ihnen trugen, war nachher sogar dermaßen verstrahlt, dass sie vernichtet werden musste. In den folgenden Monaten und Jahren begannen die Arbeitskräfte von Thule unter allen möglichen schrecklichen Krankheiten zu leiden. Einer von ihnen war Herr Carswell, der Petent in diesem Fall. Dies ist eine lange Geschichte, die durch sämtliche dänische Rechtsinstanzen ging und Gegenstand zahlreicher Berichte, Debatten und Diskussionen war. Wir prüfen hier einen ganz spezifischen Aspekt dieser unendlichen Geschichte, nämlich die Rechte der Arbeitskräfte von Thule gemäß der Richtlinie 96/29/Euratom des Rates vom 13. Mai 1996 zur Festlegung der grundlegenden Sicherheitsnormen für den Schutz der Gesundheit der Arbeitskräfte und der Bevölkerung gegen die Gefahren durch ionisierende Strahlungen. Es wurden ja jede Menge Rechtsargumente gegen die Forderungen der Petenten angeführt. Ich möchte hier nicht im Einzelnen darauf eingehen, sondern lediglich erwähnen, dass sie in den Bericht aufgenommen und einer eingehenden Prüfung unterzogen wurden – sowohl was die Frage der zeitlichen und räumlichen Geltung des Vertrags für Grönland als auch die Frage der Anwendbarkeit auf militärische Zwischenfälle angeht. Im Hinblick auf den betroffenen Mitgliedstaat handelt es sich allerdings nicht um einen militärischen Zwischenfall. Der militärische Aspekt berührt schließlich nur einen Drittstaat, so dass wir der Rechtssprechung des EGH folgend der Meinung sind, dass die Richtlinie hier sehr wohl anwendbar ist. Aber dies ist nicht nur eine rechtliche, sondern vor allem auch eine politische Frage – eine Frage, die sogar unter Berufung auf die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention vorgebracht werden könnte, wobei es um die Pflicht eines Staates ginge, geeignete Schritte zu tun, um das Leben der Personen innerhalb seiner Zuständigkeit zu sichern. Fest steht jedenfalls, dass in der Richtlinie das Recht auf ärztliche Betreuung der Überlebenden sowie auf angemessene Überwachungs- und Interventionsmaßnahmen vorgesehen ist – und nicht bloß die statistische Aufbereitung, wie sie bisher erfolgte. Vielmehr ist eine umfassende ärztliche Überwachung erforderlich, die nicht nur den Überlebenden zugute kommen würde, sondern bei künftigen Zwischenfällen auch für die Gesundheit und Sicherheit aller EU-Bürger von Bedeutung wäre. Wenn dies nicht möglich ist, dann ist klar, dass der Vertrag einfach nicht funktioniert. Daher müssen wir uns mit dem Vertrag befassen und eine Überprüfung vornehmen. Ich fürchte, ich muss die Kolleginnen und Kollegen auffordern, die Änderungsanträge abzulehnen. Sie sind irreführend oder beziehen sich auf unkonkrete Vorfälle, die gar nicht in der Petition enthalten sind. Oder es wird versucht, die in dem Bericht enthaltenen Argumente zu unterwandern. Daher empfehle ich im Namen der Überlebenden von Thule und in Erwartung einer künftigen Überarbeitung des Vertrags, für den Bericht in seiner unveränderten Form zu stimmen."@de9
". Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η έκθεση αυτή αποτελεί ομαλή συνέχεια της τελευταίας συζήτησης, η οποία αναφερόταν στη γενική φύση της Συνθήκης Ευρατόμ – στο παρελθόν, το παρόν και το μέλλον. Πρόκειται για πραγματική, συγκεκριμένη, μεμονωμένη περίπτωση, η οποία σαφώς υπογραμμίζει τους λόγους για τους οποίους η εν λόγω Συνθήκη χρειάζεται να μελετηθεί, ώστε να διασφαλιστεί η μελλοντική ασφάλεια των πολιτών της Ευρώπης σε περίπτωση πυρηνικών συμβάντων. Το εν λόγω πυρηνικό συμβάν και οι θλιβερές συνέπειές του για ορισμένα άτομα έχουν ευρύτερες επιπτώσεις στην υγεία και την ασφάλεια όλων των πολιτών μας. Αποτελεί, βεβαίως, το ισχυρό σημείο του συστήματος αναφορών που έχουμε και το οποίο επιτρέπει σε άτομα να μας εφιστούν την προσοχή σε τέτοια ζητήματα, όταν τα ευρωπαϊκά όργανα ή το εκάστοτε νομοθετικό πλαίσιο δεν παρέχουν την αρωγή που θα επιθυμούσαν ή θα ανέμεναν. Οι πολίτες μας δηλώνουν έτσι ότι η Συνθήκη Ευρατόμ δεν λειτουργεί, επομένως οφείλουμε να τους ακούσουμε. Θα σας μεταφέρω τώρα νοερά σε μια αρκτική νύχτα τον Ιανουάριο του 1968, την εποχή του Ψυχρού Πολέμου – όντως, τα δεδομένα του περιστατικού αυτού μοιάζουν με διεθνές θρίλερ. Ένα αμερικανικό βομβαρδιστικό τύπου B-52 παρουσιάζει βλάβη, το πλήρωμα προσπαθεί να εγκαταλείψει το σκάφος με ασφάλεια και αυτό συντρίβεται στη Γροιλανδία, μεταφέροντας τεράστιες ποσότητες πλουτωνίου για στρατιωτικούς σκοπούς. Κάτοικοι της Γροιλανδίας που εργάζονταν στην αμερικανική βάση του Thule αμέσως σπεύδουν στις παγωμένες εκτάσεις, ανά ομάδες με σκύλους χάσκι, για να προσεγγίσουν το συντριβέν αεροπλάνο, ενώ οι Αμερικανοί αγωνιούν να φτάσουν εκεί πριν από οποιονδήποτε άλλον. Τις ακόλουθες εβδομάδες, συμμετείχαν στον καθαρισμό της περιοχής πολλοί εργαζόμενοι στο Thule. Αυτοί δεν εργάζονταν σε συνθήκες εργαστηρίου. Δεν φορούσαν προστατευτικό ρουχισμό, εκτός για την αντιμετώπιση του κρύου – και μάλιστα ο ρουχισμός πολλών εξ αυτών ήταν τόσο μολυσμένος από τη ραδιενέργεια, ώστε χρειάστηκε να καταστραφεί. Τους επόμενους μήνες και έτη, οι εργάτες του Thule άρχισαν να υποφέρουν από παντός είδους φοβερές επιπτώσεις στην υγεία τους. Ο κ. Carswell, ο αναφέρων εν προκειμένω, υπήρξε ένας από αυτούς. Πρόκειται για μακροσκελή ιστορία, η οποία απασχόλησε εκτενώς τη δανική δικαιοσύνη και αποτέλεσε αντικείμενο πολλών εκθέσεων, αντιπαραθέσεων και συζητήσεων. Εξετάζουμε εν προκειμένω ένα πολύ συγκεκριμένο ζήτημα στην όλη ιστορία: τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων του Thule υπό την οδηγία του Συμβουλίου 96/29/Ευρατόμ της 13ης Μαΐου 1996, στην οποία ορίζονται οι βασικές προδιαγραφές ασφαλείας για την προστασία της υγείας των εργαζομένων και του ευρύτερου κοινού έναντι των κινδύνων από την ιοντίζουσα ακτινοβολία. Νομικά επιχειρήματα παντός είδους έχουν προβληθεί κατά των αναφερόντων και δεν προτίθεμαι να ασχοληθώ σε βάθος μαζί τους εν προκειμένω· αναφέρω απλώς ότι παρατίθενται και αντιμετωπίζονται με σοβαρότητα στην έκθεση – το ζήτημα τόσο της χρονικής όσο και της γεωγραφικής εφαρμογής της Συνθήκης στη Γροιλανδία και το ζήτημα της εφαρμογής σε στρατιωτικά συμβάντα. Εκείνο δεν ήταν στρατιωτικό συμβάν, σε ό,τι αφορά το εμπλεκόμενο κράτος μέλος. Η στρατιωτική παράμετρος ανήκει σε τρίτη χώρα· επομένως εμείς, ακολουθώντας τη διαδικασία του Δικαστηρίου, ισχυριζόμαστε ότι η οδηγία όντως έχει εφαρμογή. Ωστόσο, δεν πρόκειται για αποκλειστικά νομικό ζήτημα· είναι προπαντός ζήτημα πολιτικό – ζήτημα το οποίο θα μπορούσε να στηριχθεί ακόμη και στην Ευρωπαϊκή Σύμβαση των Ανθρωπίνων Δικαιωμάτων, αναφορικά με την υποχρέωση ενός κράτους να λαμβάνει τα κατάλληλα μέτρα για την περιφρούρηση της ζωής όσων βρίσκονται εντός της επικράτειάς του. Ωστόσο, είμαστε απολύτως σαφείς ότι υφίσταται δικαίωμα στο πλαίσιο της οδηγίας για την ιατρική παρακολούθηση των επιζησάντων, κατάλληλη επίβλεψη και παρεμβατικά μέτρα – όχι απλώς στατιστικές ασκήσεις όπως γινόταν μέχρι τώρα, αλλά κατάλληλη κλινική, ιατρική παρακολούθηση η οποία θα ωφελούσε όχι μόνο τους εν λόγω επιζήσαντες αλλά και την υγεία και ασφάλεια όλων των πολιτών της Ευρώπης σε περίπτωση τέτοιων συμβάντων στο μέλλον. Εάν δεν επιτραπεί αυτό, τότε σημαίνει ότι η συνθήκη δεν λειτουργεί, και γι’ αυτό χρειάζεται αναθεώρηση και προσοχή. Φοβάμαι ότι πρέπει επίσης να παροτρύνω τους συναδέλφους να απορρίψουν τις τροπολογίες. Είναι συγκεχυμένες ή αναφέρονται σε απροσδιόριστα γεγονότα που δεν περιλαμβάνονται στην αναφορά, ή προσπαθούν να υπονομεύσουν την επιχειρηματολογία της έκθεσης. Επομένως, εξ ονόματος των επιζησάντων του Thule, και με την ελπίδα της μελλοντικής αναθεώρησης της συνθήκης, συνιστώ την υπερψήφιση της έκθεσης άνευ τροπολογιών."@el10
". Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, este informe casa muy bien con el debate anterior sobre la naturaleza general del Tratado Euratom, su pasado, presente y futuro. Se trata de un caso real, concreto e individual que pone claramente de relieve por qué este Tratado debe examinarse para garantizar la seguridad futura de los ciudadanos europeos en caso de accidente nuclear. Este accidente nuclear y sus tristes secuelas para algunos individuos tienen amplias implicaciones para la salud y la seguridad de todos nuestros ciudadanos. Es, por supuesto, la fuerza de nuestro sistema de peticiones el que permite a los individuos llamarnos la atención sobre hechos como este, cuando las instituciones europeas o el marco legal no los han apoyado como ellos habían deseado o esperado. Nuestros ciudadanos nos dicen que el Tratado Euratom no funciona, así que debemos escucharles. Permítanme retrotraerles a una noche ártica de enero de 1968, todavía en la era de la Guerra Fría; en efecto, los hechos de esta historia suenan como una historia de suspense internacional. Un bombardero estadounidense B-52 tiene problemas, la tripulación salta en paracaídas para salvarse y el avión se estrella en Groenlandia con una enorme cantidad de plutonio de uso militar a bordo. Algunos residentes de Groenlandia que trabajan en la base estadounidense de Thule parten inmediatamente sobre el hielo con trineos tirados por huskys para llegar al avión siniestrado; los estadounidenses están desesperados por llegar antes que nadie. Durante las semanas siguientes, muchos trabajadores de Thule participaron en la limpieza. No trabajaron en condiciones de laboratorio. No se pusieron ropa de seguridad, excepto contra el frío; de hecho, la ropa que muchos de ellos llevaban puesta estaba tan contaminada por la radiación que tuvo que ser destruida. Con los meses y los años, los trabajadores de Thule empezaron a sufrir todo tipo de terribles consecuencias para su salud. El señor Carswell, el peticionario en este caso, fue uno de ellos. Es una larga historia que ha pasado por todos los tribunales daneses y ha sido objeto de muchos informes, debates y discusiones. Lo que nos ocupa es un aspecto muy concreto de la saga, a saber, los derechos de los trabajadores de Thule con arreglo a la Directiva del Consejo 96/29/Euratom, de 13 de mayo de 1996, por la que se establecen las normas básicas relativas a la protección sanitaria de los trabajadores y de la población contra los riesgos que resultan de las radiaciones ionizantes. Se han esgrimido todo tipo de argumentos jurídicos contra los peticionarios y no pretendo comentarlos aquí en detalle, simplemente quiero decir que aparecen expuestos y tratados en profundidad en el informe: la cuestión de la aplicación temporal y geográfica del Tratado a Groenlandia y la cuestión de la aplicación a accidentes militares. No fue un accidente militar en lo que respecta al Estado miembro implicado. El elemento militar es de un país tercero, por eso nosotros, siguiendo los pasos del TJCE, argumentamos que la Directiva es, en efecto, aplicable. Pero esto no es solo un argumento jurídico; es sobre todo un argumento político, un argumento que podría incluso ampararse en el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos en relación con la obligación de un Estado de tomar las medidas oportunas para salvaguardar las vidas de quienes se hallan dentro de su jurisdicción. Sin embargo, lo que tenemos absolutamente claro es que existe un derecho conforme a la Directiva sobre controles médicos de los supervivientes, vigilancia adecuada y medidas de intervención, no únicamente ejercicios estadísticos como se han realizado hasta la fecha, sino controles clínicos y médicos adecuados que beneficien no solo a los supervivientes, sino también la salud y la seguridad de todos los ciudadanos europeos en caso de producirse este tipo de accidentes en el futuro. Si no se permite esto, quiere decir que el Tratado no funciona y por esto es preciso revisarlo con atención. Me temo que debo instar a los colegas a rechazar las enmiendas. Son confusas o hacen referencia a sucesos inconcretos no mencionados en la petición, o bien intentan socavar la argumentación del informe. Por tanto, en nombre de los supervivientes de Thule, y con la esperanza trabajar en el sobre la revisión del Tratado, les pido su apoyo al informe sin enmiendas."@es21
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@et5
". Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komission jäsen, tämä keskustelu sopii hyvin käytäväksi edellisen keskustelun perään. Äskenhän käsiteltiin yleisesti Euratom-sopimuksen menneisyyttä, nykyisyyttä ja tulevaisuutta. Nyt käsitellään todellista yksittäistä tapausta, joka osoittaa selkeästi, miksi Euratom-sopimukseen on kiinnitettävä huomiota, jotta Euroopan unionin kansalaisten turvallisuus ydinonnettomuuksissa voidaan varmistaa jatkossa. Tällä ydinonnettomuudella ja siitä muutamille yksittäisille henkilöille aiheutuneilla surullisilla jälkiseurauksilla on laajempaa merkitystä kaikkien kansalaisten terveydelle ja turvallisuudelle. Vetoomusjärjestelmämme ansiosta yksittäiset henkilöt voivat saattaa tällaiset tapaukset tietoomme, kun EU:n toimielimet tai lainsäädäntö eivät ole olleet heidän tukenaan, niin kuin he olisivat odottaneet tai toivoneet. Kansalaisten mukaan Euratom-sopimus ei toimi, joten heitä on kuunneltava. Palataanpa tuohon napapiirin yöhön tammikuussa 1968. Kylmä sota oli edelleen käynnissä, ja tarina kuulostaa lähinnä kansainväliseltä jännityskertomukselta. Yhdysvaltalainen B-52-pommikone joutuu vaikeuksiin, miehistö pelastautuu ja kone, jossa on lastina valtava määrä asekelpoista plutoniumia, putoaa Grönlantiin. Yhdysvaltojen tukikohdassa Thulessa työskentelevät grönlantilaiset kiirehtivät välittömästi koiravaljakoin jäätikön yli pudonneelle koneelle, jonne yhdysvaltalaiset pyrkivät pääsemään epätoivoisesti ennen muita. Seuraavien viikkojen ajan monet Thulen työntekijöistä osallistuvat puhdistustyöhön. He eivät työskentele laboratorio-olosuhteissa. Heillä ei ole suojavaatetusta, paitsi kylmää vastaan. Itse asiassa monien vaatteet saastuvat säteilystä niin pahoin, että ne on tuhottava. Seuraavien kuukausien ja vuosien aikana Thulen työntekijät alkavat kärsiä kaikenlaisista vakavista terveysongelmista. Vetoomuksen esittäjä Carswell on yksi heistä. Tämä on pitkä tarina, jota on käsitelty Tanskan tuomioistuimissa, josta on tehty monia raportteja ja josta on käyty lukuisia keskusteluja. Nyt keskitytään tarinan yhteen erityiseen kohtaan eli Thulen työntekijöiden oikeuksiin, jotka perustuvat perusnormien vahvistamisesta työntekijöiden ja väestön terveyden suojelemiseksi ionisoivasta säteilystä aiheutuvilta vaaroilta 13. toukokuuta 1996 annettuun neuvoston direktiiviin 96/29/Euratom. Vetoomuksen esittäjiä vastaan on esitetty kaikenlaisia oikeudellisia perusteita, joita en aio käsitellä tässä tarkemmin. Totean vain, että ne on lueteltu ja niitä on käsitelty vakavasti mietinnössä. Siinä on käsitelty sekä Euratom-sopimuksen ajallista että maantieteellistä soveltamista Grönlantiin ja sen soveltamista sotilasonnettomuuksiin. Tämä ei ollut sotilasonnettomuus asianosaisen jäsenvaltion kannalta. Sotilaallinen näkökohta on peräisin kolmannesta valtiosta, joten esitämme yhteisöjen tuomioistuimen tavoin, että direktiiviä voidaan todellakin soveltaa. Kyse ei ole kuitenkaan vain oikeudellisesta perusteesta vaan ennen kaikkea poliittisesta perusteesta, jossa voitaisiin vedota jopa Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen mukaiseen valtion velvollisuuteen toteuttaa tarvittavat toimenpiteet elämän suojaamiseksi sen toimivaltaan kuuluvalla alueella. Olemme kuitenkin ehdottomasti sitä mieltä, että hengissä selvinneillä on direktiivin nojalla oikeus terveystarkastuksiin ja asianmukaisiin tarkkailu- ja interventiotoimenpiteisiin. Tähän mennessä on laadittu vain tilastoja sen sijaan, että olisi tehty kunnollisia kliinisiä ja lääketieteellisiä tarkastuksia, joista olisi hyötyä hengissä selvinneiden lisäksi kaikkien Euroopan unionin kansalaisten terveydelle ja turvallisuudelle mahdollisten tulevien onnettomuuksien yhteydessä. Ellei tätä sallita, sopimus ei selvästikään toimi, jolloin sitä on tarkistettava ja pohdittava tarkemmin. Minun on valitettavasti vaadittava kollegojani hylkäämään tarkistukset. Ne ovat sekavia, niissä viitataan epämääräisiin tapahtumiin, joita ei ole mainittu vetoomuksessa, tai niillä pyritään viemään pohja pois mietinnössä esitetyiltä perusteilta. Niinpä suosittelen teille mietintöä sellaisenaan Thulen onnettomuudesta hengissä selvinneiden puolesta toivoen, että sopimusta tarkistetaan jatkossa."@fi7
". Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce rapport arrive tout à fait à propos après le dernier débat, qui portait sur le caractère général du traité Euratom passé, présent et futur. Nous sommes devant un cas individuel, spécifique et réel, qui souligne clairement la raison pour laquelle ce traité doit être réexaminé si nous voulons garantir la sécurité future des citoyens européens en cas d’incidents nucléaires. Cet incident nucléaire et ses conséquences malheureuses pour certains individus ont des implications plus larges pour la santé et la sécurité de tous nos concitoyens. C’est précisément la possibilité qui est offerte à des citoyens de porter de tels événements à notre attention lorsque les institutions européennes ou le cadre juridique ne les ont pas aidés comme ils l’auraient souhaité ou pouvaient s’y attendre qui fait la force de notre système de pétition. Si nos concitoyens nous affirment que le traité Euratom ne fonctionne pas, nous devons donc les écouter. Permettez-moi de vous ramener en Arctique, en cette nuit de janvier 1968, alors que nous étions toujours en pleine Guerre froide - car les faits sont dignes d’un thriller international. Un bombardier B-52 américain a des ennuis, les membres de l’équipage s’éjectent et l’avion s’écrase au Groenland avec, à son bord, une grosse quantité de plutonium destiné à la fabrication d’armes. Les habitants du Groenland travaillant sur la base américaine de Thulé se rendent directement sur les lieux de l’accident, traversant la glace avec des attelages d’husky, car les Américains sont prêts à tout pour arriver là-bas les premiers. Au cours des semaines qui suivent, de nombreux travailleurs de Thulé ont pris part aux opérations de nettoyage. Ils ne travaillaient pas dans des conditions de laboratoire. Ils ne portaient pas de vêtements de protection, si ce n’est contre le froid - les vêtements que bon nombre d’entre eux portaient étaient tellement contaminés par les radiations qu’ils ont dû être détruits. Au fil des mois et des années qui ont suivi, les travailleurs de Thulé ont commencé à souffrir de toutes sortes de conséquences terribles pour leur santé. M. Carswell, le pétitionnaire dans cette affaire, étaient l’un d’entre eux. C’est une longue histoire, qui a été portée devant les tribunaux danois et a fait l’objet de nombreux rapports, débats et discussions. Nous examinons ici un point très spécifique de cette saga, à savoir les droits des travailleurs de Thulé au titre de la directive 96/29/Euratom du Conseil du 13 mai 1996 fixant les normes de sécurité de base relatives à la protection sanitaire de la population et des travailleurs contre les dangers résultants des rayonnements ionisants. Toutes sortes d’arguments juridiques ont été élevés à l’encontre des pétitionnaires et mon but ici n’est pas de les examiner en détail, mais simplement de dire qu’ils sont exposés et étudiés avec sérieux dans le rapport - la question de l’application temporelle et géographique du traité au Groenland et de son application aux incidents militaires. Il ne s’agissait pas d’un incident militaire du point de vue de l’État membre concerné. L’aspect militaire est lié à un État tiers, de sorte que, si l’on suit la Cour de justice, nous affirmons que la directive peut s’appliquer. Mais il ne s’agit pas simplement d’un argument juridique; c’est surtout un argument politique - un argument qui pourrait même être approfondi en vertu de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, concernant l’obligation d’un État de prendre les mesures appropriées pour protéger la vie des personnes sous sa juridiction. Quoi qu’il en soit, il est clair à nos yeux qu’il existe un droit pour les survivants, au titre de la directive, à une surveillance médicale et à des opérations appropriées de surveillance et d’intervention - pas simplement des exercices statistiques tels que ceux réalisés jusqu’à ce jour, mais une surveillance clinique et médicale appropriée qui profite non seulement aux survivants, mais également à la santé et à la sécurité de tous les citoyens européens au cas où de tels incidents se produiraient dans le futur. Le fait de ne pas autoriser cela voudrait dire que le traité ne fonctionne pas, raison pour laquelle il doit être revu et faire l’objet d’une certaine attention. J’ai bien peur de devoir inviter mes collègues à rejeter les amendements. Ceux-ci sont en effet confus, se rapportent à des événements non spécifiés qui ne sont pas mentionnés dans la pétition ou tentent d’affaiblir l’argumentation du rapport. C’est la raison pour laquelle, au nom des survivants de Thulé, et dans l’espoir de futurs travaux de révision du traité, je vous recommande d’adopter ce rapport tel quel."@fr8
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@hu11
"Signora Presidente, signor Commissario, la presente relazione fa seguito all’ultimo dibattito tenuto sulla natura del Trattato EURATOM passato, presente e futuro. Questo è un caso concreto, singolo e specifico, che ben evidenzia il motivo per cui occorre analizzare il Trattato allo scopo di garantire la futura sicurezza dei cittadini europei in caso di incidenti nucleari. L’incidente nucleare in questione e le sue tristi conseguenze per alcuni soggetti hanno ampie implicazioni sulla salute e sulla sicurezza di tutti i nostri cittadini. E’, ovviamente, grazie al potere del nostro sistema di petizione che le singole persone possono portare simili eventi alla nostra attenzione, laddove le Istituzioni europee o il quadro giuridico non sono stati d’aiuto come avrebbero voluto o dovuto. I nostri cittadini ci dicono che il Trattato EURATOM non funziona, e noi dovremmo ascoltare. Permettetemi di ricordare la notte artica del gennaio 1968, ancora all’epoca della guerra fredda – in effetti, i fatti di questa storia sembrano un internazionale. Un bombardiere B-52 americano finisce nei guai, l’equipaggio si mette frettolosamente in salvo e l’aereo precipita in Groenlandia con a bordo un’enorme quantità di plutonio per uso militare. I residenti locali in servizio alla base americana di Thule immediatamente si avventurano tra i ghiacci con mute di cani da slitta per recuperare l’aereo caduto, gli americani ansiosi di giungere a destinazione prima di chiunque altro. Nelle settimane seguenti, molti dipendenti della base di Thule sono stati coinvolti nelle operazioni di sgombero. Non lavoravano in condizioni di laboratorio. Non indossavano indumenti protettivi, tranne quelli contro il freddo – in realtà, l’abbigliamento che molti indossavano era così contaminato dalle radiazioni che ha dovuto essere distrutto. Nei mesi e negli anni successivi, i dipendenti di Thule hanno iniziato a risentire di gravi disturbi di salute nelle forme più svariate. Il signor Carswell, firmatario in questo caso, era uno di loro. E’ una lunga storia, che ha fatto il giro di tutti i tribunali danesi ed è stata oggetto di molte relazioni, dibattiti e discussioni. Qui analizziamo un aspetto molto specifico della saga, cioè i diritti dei dipendenti di Thule in conformità della direttiva 96/29/EURATOM del Consiglio, del 13 maggio 1996, che stabilisce le norme fondamentali di sicurezza relative alla protezione sanitaria della popolazione e dei lavoratori contro i pericoli derivanti dalle radiazioni ionizzanti. Contro i firmatari sono state sollevate tutte le possibili argomentazioni giuridiche, e qui non voglio entrare nel dettaglio; mi limiterò a dire che sono esposte e spiegate con serietà nella relazione – la questione dell’applicazione geografica e temporale del Trattato alla Groenlandia e il punto riguardante l’applicazione agli incidenti militari. Per quanto riguarda lo Stato membro coinvolto, non si è trattato di un incidente militare. L’elemento militare proviene da un paese terzo, quindi noi, seguendo le orme della Corte di giustizia, riteniamo che la direttiva possa applicarsi al caso. Questa, però, non è solo un’argomentazione giuridica; è soprattutto un’argomentazione politica – un’argomentazione che si potrebbe persino difendere con la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo, citando l’obbligo di uno Stato ad adottare le misure adeguate per proteggere le vite dei cittadini che vivono sotto la sua giurisdizione. Ad ogni modo, il punto su cui vogliamo assolutamente essere chiari è che la direttiva prevede il diritto dei sopravvissuti a controlli medici e a misure di sorveglianza e intervento – non meri esercizi statistici come si è fatto finora, ma controlli medici e clinici adeguati, a vantaggio non solo dei sopravvissuti, ma anche della salute e della sicurezza di tutti i cittadini europei in caso di incidenti analoghi in futuro. Se ciò non è possibile vuol dire che il Trattato non funziona, motivo per cui merita attenzione e necessita di una revisione. Purtroppo devo anche esortare i colleghi a respingere gli emendamenti. Sono confusi, si riferiscono a eventi imprecisati non citati nella petizione e cercano di indebolire le argomentazioni addotte nella relazione. Per tale motivo, a nome dei sopravvissuti di Thule e nella speranza di una futura revisione del Trattato, raccomando la relazione all’Assemblea, senza emendamenti."@it12
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@lt14
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@lv13
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@mt15
". Mevrouw de Voorzitter, commissaris, dit verslag sluit goed aan bij het vorige debat, dat ging over de aard van het Euratom-Verdrag in het verleden, heden en de toekomst. Dit is een actueel, specifiek, afzonderlijk geval, dat duidelijk aantoont waarom we naar dit Verdrag moeten kijken als wij de Europese burgers in de toekomst veiligheid willen garanderen in geval van nucleaire incidenten. Dit nucleaire incident had trieste gevolgen voor bepaalde mensen maar heeft ook een meer algemene weerslag op de gezondheid en de veiligheid van al onze burgers. De kracht van ons verzoekschriftensysteem bestaat er juist in dat mensen dergelijke voorvallen onder onze aandacht kunnen brengen wanneer zij niet de gewenste, of de verwachte ondersteuning krijgen van de Europese instellingen of het wetgevingskader. Onze burgers zeggen ons dat het Euratom-Verdrag niet werkt, en dus moeten we naar hen luisteren. Ik neem u even mee terug naar een poolnacht in januari 1968, in het tijdperk van de Koude Oorlog - de feiten van dit verhaal doen inderdaad denken aan een internationale thriller. Een Amerikaanse B-52 bommenwerper krijgt problemen, de bemanning stelt alles in het werk om hem in veiligheid te brengen, en het vliegtuig komt neer in Groenland met een enorme hoeveelheid wapenplutonium aan boord. Bewoners van Groenland, die werkzaam waren op de Amerikaanse basis in Thule, begeven zich met husky-teams op het ijs om het neergestorte vliegtuig te bereiken, waarbij de Amerikanen vertwijfeld proberen om er als eerste bij te zijn. In de daarop volgende weken waren vele werkers uit Thule betrokken bij de opruimingswerkzaamheden. Er werd niet gewerkt onder gecontroleerde omstandigheden. De kleding die de mensen droegen, was slechts geschikt voor bescherming tegen de koude - achteraf bleek zelfs dat de kleding van velen van hen dermate radioactief besmet was dat deze vernietigd moest worden. In de daarop volgende maanden en jaren kreeg een groot aantal Thule-werknemers last van ernstige gezondheidsproblemen. De heer Carswell, in dit geval de indiener van het verzoekschrift, was een van hen. Dit is een lang verhaal dat uitgebreid in de Deense rechtbanken behandeld is en waarover veel verslagen zijn geschreven en debatten en discussies zijn gevoerd. We kijken hier naar een zeer specifiek aspect van dit verhaal, te weten de rechten van de Thule-werkers op grond van Richtlijn 96/29/Euratom van de Raad van 13 mei 1996, tot vaststelling van de basisnormen voor de bescherming van de gezondheid der bevolking en der werkers tegen de aan ioniserende straling verbonden gevaren. Er zijn allerlei juridische argumenten gebruikt tegen de indieners van het verzoekschrift, en ik zal daar verder niet op ingaan. Ik volsta met te zeggen dat deze in het verslag zijn uiteengezet en serieus worden behandeld, en daarbij heb ik het over zowel de kwestie van de tijdelijke en geografische toepassing van het Verdrag op Groenland als de kwestie van de toepassing op militaire incidenten. Voor de lidstaat in kwestie was het geen militair incident. Het militaire element betrof een derde land, en daarom treden wij in het voetspoor van het EHJ en stellen dat de richtlijn inderdaad van toepassing kan zijn. Dit is echter niet slechts een juridische zaak, maar bovenal een politieke zaak - een zaak die zelfs aan het Europees Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens getoetst kan worden, waarin staat dat een staat verplicht is om adequate maatregelen te nemen ter bescherming van het leven van degenen die onder hun jurisdictie vallen. Waar we echter absoluut duidelijk over zijn is het feit dat deze richtlijn overlevenden het recht geeft op medische controle, gepast toezicht en interventiemaatregelen - en niet slechts op de statistische exercities die tot op heden zijn uitgevoerd. Ze hebben recht op passende klinische en medische controle, die goed zou zijn niet alleen voor de overlevenden maar ook voor de gezondheid en veiligheid van alle Europese burgers indien zich in de toekomst soortgelijke gevallen zouden voordoen. Als dat niet is toegestaan, dan is dat een teken dat het Verdrag niet werkt, en dus is het nodig om er aandacht aan te besteden en het te herzien. Ik vrees de collega’s te moeten vragen om de amendementen te verwerpen. Zij zijn onduidelijk, verwijzen naar niet nader in het verzoekschrift gespecificeerde voorvallen, of hebben tot doel de argumentering van het verslag te ondermijnen. Daarom vraag ik u dit verslag ongewijzigd aan te nemen, namens de overlevenden van Thule en in de hoop van een toekomstige herziening van het Verdrag."@nl3
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@pl16
"Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, este relatório insere-se, e bem, na linha do debate anterior, que incidiu sobre a natureza genérica do Tratado Euratom no passado, no presente e no futuro. O relatório em apreço trata de um caso concreto, específico e individual, que põe claramente em evidência as razões por que se impõe a revisão deste tratado, se se pretende futuramente assegurar a segurança dos cidadãos da Europa em caso de acidentes nucleares. O acidente nuclear em causa e as suas tristes consequências tardias para determinadas pessoas têm implicações mais vastas para a saúde e a segurança de todos os nossos cidadãos. O nosso sistema de petições tem, naturalmente, como ponto forte o facto de permitir aos cidadãos trazer à nossa atenção acontecimentos como este, quando as Instituições e o quadro jurídico da União Europeia não lhes facultaram a ajuda que eles desejariam ou esperariam. Os nossos cidadãos afirmam-nos que o Tratado Euratom não está a funcionar, e é nossa obrigação dar-lhes ouvidos. Recuemos pois a uma noite no Árctico, em Janeiro de 1968, ainda na era da Guerra Fria – aliás, os factos desta história fazem lembrar os de um tríler internacional. Um bombardeiro americano B-52 entra em apuros, a tripulação consegue ejectar-se, e o avião despenha-se na Gronelândia com uma enorme quantidade de plutónio a bordo destinado ao fabrico de armas nucleares. Pessoas residentes na Gronelândia e que trabalhavam na base aérea americana de Thule rapidamente acorreram - através do gelo e com matilhas de cães esquimós - ao local onde a aeronave se despenhara, mostrando-se os Americanos desesperados por lá chegar antes de quaisquer outros. Nas semanas que se seguiram, muitos trabalhadores da base aérea de Thule estiveram envolvidos nas operações de "limpeza". Não trabalharam em condições de laboratório. Não envergaram quaisquer roupas protectoras, excepto contra o frio – na verdade, a roupa que muitos deles utilizaram ficou de tal modo contaminada pelas radiações que teve de ser destruída. Ao longo dos meses e anos que se seguiram, os trabalhadores de Thule começaram a sofrer todo o tipo de consequências terríveis em termos de saúde. O Sr. Jeffrey Carswell, autor da petição em causa, foi um deles. Esta é uma longa história, que já correu os seus trâmites nos tribunais dinamarqueses e já foi objecto de numerosos relatórios, debates e discussões. Neste caso, estamos a analisar uma questão muito concreta desta saga, nomeadamente, os direitos dos trabalhadores de Thule à luz da Directiva 96/29/Euratom do Conselho, de 13 de Maio de 1996, que fixa as normas de segurança de base relativas à protecção sanitária da população e dos trabalhadores contra os perigos resultantes das radiações ionizantes. Têm sido levantados argumentos jurídicos de todo o tipo contra os autores da petição, e não vou neste momento debruçar-me circunstanciadamente sobre eles. Direi apenas que todos esses argumentos se encontram descritos e seriamente tratados no relatório – tanto a questão da aplicação no tempo da legislação comunitária aos factos evocados e da aplicação territorial do Tratado à Gronelândia, como a questão da aplicabilidade do Tratado aos acidentes militares. No que diz respeito ao Estado-Membro em causa, não se tratou de um acidente militar. A componente militar está associada a um país terceiro, e daí o nosso argumento, consentâneo com o parecer do TJE, de que a Directiva é efectivamente aplicável nesta caso. Mas não se trata aqui de uma mera argumentação jurídica; trata-se, sim, e acima de tudo, de uma argumentação política - uma argumentação que poderia ser defendida, inclusivamente, à luz da Convenção Europeia dos Direitos do Homem, que obriga o Estado a tomar as medidas adequadas para preservar a vida das pessoas que estão sob a sua jurisdição. Seja como for, o que não oferece a menor dúvida é o direito, previsto na Directiva, dos sobreviventes à realização de controlos médicos e a medidas adequadas de vigilância e intervenção – não meros exercícios de estatística como os efectuados até ao presente, mas uma monitorização clínica e médica adequada que beneficiaria não apenas aqueles sobreviventes mas também a saúde e a segurança de todos os cidadãos europeus na eventualidade de acidentes desta natureza no futuro. Se estas medidas não são autorizadas, o que isso significa é que o Tratado não está a funcionar, e daí a necessidade de ele ser revisto e de termos em atenção essa questão. Receio que terei igualmente de pedir aos colegas que rejeitem as alterações, que ora são confusas, ora remetem para acontecimentos não especificados - nem mencionados no relatório -, ora procuram minar a argumentação constante no relatório. Assim, em nome dos sobreviventes de Thule, e na esperança de um futuro trabalho de revisão do Tratado, recomendo-vos o relatório, inalterado."@pt17
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@ro18
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@sk19
"Madam President, Commissioner, this report follows on well from the last debate, which was on the general nature of the Euratom Treaty past, present and future. This is an actual, specific, individual case, which clearly highlights why this Treaty needs looking at in order to ensure the future safety of Europe’s citizens in the event of nuclear incidents. This nuclear incident and its sad after-effects for certain individuals have wider implications for the health and safety of all our citizens. It is, of course, the strength of our petition system that it allows individuals to bring such events to our attention when the European institutions or legal framework have not assisted as they would have wished or expected. Our citizens are telling us that the Euratom Treaty is not working, so we should listen. Let me take you back to an Arctic night in January 1968, still the era of the Cold War – indeed the facts of this story sound like an international thriller. An American B-52 bomber gets into trouble, the crew scramble to safety and the plane comes down in Greenland with an enormous amount of weapons-grade plutonium on board. Residents of Greenland working at the American base at Thule immediately set out across the ice with husky teams to get to the downed plane, the Americans desperate to get there before anyone else. Over the weeks that follow, many Thule workers were involved in the clear-up. They were not working in laboratory conditions. They were not wearing any protective clothing, except against the cold – indeed the clothing that many of them wore was so contaminated by radiation that it had to be destroyed. Over the months and years that followed, the Thule workers began to suffer all sorts of terrible health consequences. Mr Carswell, the petitioner in this case, was one of them. This is a long story, which has been all through the Danish courts and has been the subject of many reports, debates and discussions. We are looking here at a very specific issue in the saga, namely the rights of the Thule workers under Council Directive 96/29/Euratom of 13 May 1996, laying down the basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation. All sorts of legal arguments have been raised against the petitioners and I do not seek to deal with those in detail here, but will merely say that they are set out and dealt with seriously in the report – the question of both the temporal and geographic application of the Treaty to Greenland and the issue of the application to military incidents. This was not a military incident as far as the Member State involved is concerned. The military element is from a third state, so we, following in the steps of the ECJ, argue that the Directive can indeed apply. But this is not just some legal argument; this is above all a political argument – an argument that could even be pursued under the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the duty of a state to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction. However, what we are absolutely clear about is that there is a right under the Directive for medical monitoring of the survivors, proper surveillance and intervention measures – not merely statistical exercises as have been conducted to date, but proper clinical, medical monitoring that would benefit not only those survivors but also the health and safety of all Europe’s citizens in the event of such future incidents. If this is not allowed, then it tells us that the Treaty is not working, and that is why it needs review and attention. I am afraid that I must also urge colleagues to reject the amendments. They are confused or refer to unspecified events not mentioned in the petition, or they try to undermine the argumentation of the report. Therefore, on behalf of the Thule survivors, and in the hope of future work to review the Treaty, I commend the report to you, unamended."@sl20
"Fru talman, herr kommissionsledamot! Detta betänkande tar vid efter den förra debatten, som handlade om Euratomfördraget i allmänhet i går, i dag och i morgon. Detta är ett aktuellt, specifikt, enskilt fall, som tydligt lyfter fram att detta fördrag måste ses över för att garantera säkerheten i framtiden för EU-medborgarna vid kärnenergiolyckor. Denna kärnenergiolycka och de sorgliga efterverkningarna för vissa enskilda personer har mer omfattande konsekvenser för alla våra medborgares hälsa och säkerhet. Det är naturligtvis en styrka att vårt system medger framställningar från enskilda personer för att uppmärksamma oss på sådana händelser när EU-institutionerna eller den rättsliga ramen inte har varit till stöd på det sätt som de skulle ha önskat eller förväntat sig. Våra medborgare talar om för oss att Euratomfördraget inte fungerar, och då måste vi lyssna. Låt mig ta er med tillbaka till den arktiska natten i januari 1968, medan det kalla kriget fortfarande pågick – det låter onekligen som en internationell thriller. Ett amerikanskt bombplan av typen B-52 får problem, besättningen har bråttom att sätta sig i säkerhet och planet störtar på Grönland med enorma mängder klyvbart plutonium av vapenkvalitet ombord. Boende på Grönland som arbetar på den amerikanska basen i Thule ger sig omedelbart ut på isen med draghundar för att komma fram till det störtade planet, och amerikanerna har förtvivlat bråttom att komma dit före någon annan. Under den följande veckan arbetar många från Thule med upprensningen. De arbetade inte under några laboratorieförhållanden. De hade inga skyddskläder förutom mot kylan – de kläder som många av dem bar blev så radioaktivt kontaminerade att man måste förstöra dem. Under de följande månaderna började de som arbetade på Thulebasen att drabbas av alla möjliga hälsoproblem. Jeffrey Carswell, framställaren i detta fall, var en av dem. Detta är en lång historia som har gått hela vägen genom de danska domstolarna och varit föremål för många rapporter, debatter och diskussioner. Vi behandlar här en mycket speciell fråga i historien, nämligen rättigheterna för arbetstagarna från Thule enligt rådets direktiv 96/29/Euratom av den 13 maj 1996 om fastställande av grundläggande säkerhetsnormer för skydd av arbetstagarnas och allmänhetens hälsa mot de faror som uppstår till följd av joniserande strålning. Alla typer av rättsliga argument har använts mot framställarna. Jag strävar inte efter att bemöta dem i detalj här utan kommer endast att säga att de nämns och behandlas grundligt i betänkandet – frågan om både den tidsmässiga och den geografiska tillämpningen av fördraget på Grönland samt frågan om tillämpningen vid militära olyckor. Detta var inte en militär olycka vad beträffar den berörda medlemsstaten. Det militära inslaget kommer från ett tredjeland, så vi hävdar, i enlighet med EG-domstolen, att direktivet faktiskt kan tillämpas. Men detta är inte bara en rättslig diskussion vilken som helst utan framför allt en politisk diskussion – en diskussion som till och med skulle kunna drivas vidare enligt Europeiska konventionen om de mänskliga rättigheterna, i fråga om en stats skyldighet att vidta vederbörliga åtgärder för att skydda livet på dem som befinner sig inom dess jurisdiktion. Vi är dock helt tydliga på den punkten att det enligt direktivet finns en rättighet för de överlevande till medicinsk övervakning, ordentliga övervaknings- och interventionsåtgärder – inte bara statistiska övningar som de som har utförts hittills utan ordentlig klinisk medicinsk övervakning, som inte bara är till gagn för dessa överlevande utan också för alla EU-medborgares hälsa och säkerhet vid eventuella framtida liknande händelser. Om detta inte medges visar det att fördraget inte fungerar, och det är därför som det behöver ses över och uppmärksammas. Jag befarar att jag måste uppmana mina kolleger att avvisa ändringsförslagen. De är röriga eller hänvisar till ospecificerade händelser som inte nämns i framställningen, eller också försöker de urholka argumentationen i betänkandet. Därför vill jag, med tanke på de överlevande från Thule och med hopp om framtida arbete för en översyn av fördraget, rekommendera betänkandet till er, utan ändringar."@sv22
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Diana Wallis (ALDE ),"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4
"rapporteur"18,5,20,15,1,19,14,16,11,13,4

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Romanian.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz
23http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph