# CE2004078EN.01058201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/582 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/582

---

(2004/C 78 E/0616)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3547/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject:   Scot-free permanent oil slick along the Portuguese coast

Subject:

Anyone who visits Portuguese beaches at any point in the year — particularly those of mainland Portugal, but also those of the Azores Autonomous Region — is regularly confronted with the depressing sight of oil slicks from oil tankers cleaning out their tanks as they pass through the Portuguese economic exclusion zone.

The Diário de Notícias of 19 November, quoting the Portuguese authorities responsible for coastguard activities, ‘every month fifteen vessels clean out their dirty oil or oil-derivatives tanks along the (...) Portuguese coast’.

The same publication states that this crime goes completely unpunished, for reasons and under circumstances which it sets out, and of which I would highlight the following:

| 1. | It is ‘extremely difficult to prove that the liquid poured into the ocean is the same as the same as that contained in the tanks’. |
| --- | --- |

1.

It is ‘extremely difficult to prove that the liquid poured into the ocean is the same as the same as that contained in the tanks’.

| 2. | ‘Even the port authorities where the ships tie up after washing out their tanks do not always provide witnesses’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

‘Even the port authorities where the ships tie up after washing out their tanks do not always provide witnesses’.

| 3. | ‘Should the ship owners win the case, the Portuguese Government could be faced with fines amounting to tens of thousands of euros’. |
| --- | --- |

3.

‘Should the ship owners win the case, the Portuguese Government could be faced with fines amounting to tens of thousands of euros’.

In conclusion, the Navy Chief of Staff spokesman claims that ‘the sea is free, and is regulated by international maritime law. Even if we drew up our own legislation to protect our coasts, this would have no effects’, and even claims that ‘we can only take steps if their objective is to prevent a catastrophe’.

Can the Commission tell me whether this explanation collaborates the total ineffectiveness of Community measures for preventing these crimes and, in any case, state what it believes is needed in order to prevent their present day in, day out repetition?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 December 2003)

(15 December 2003)

Each Member State now has fairly stringent legislation in this field. National laws partly reflect the provisions of relevant international conventions, in particular the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marpol 1973-1978).

Following the ‘Prestige’ disaster in November 2002, the Community institutions set themselves the objective, among others, of setting up a system of sanctions, including criminal sanctions for pollution infringements, such as deliberate unlawful discharges (tank cleaning operations) and, under certain conditions, accidental discharges.

On 5 March 2003, the Commission presented its proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences.

With this proposal, the Commission is essentially pursuing four objectives:

| — | Determine, under Community law, what constitutes an unlawful discharge of polluting substances at sea. In this it is following Marpol definitions to the letter. |
| --- | --- |

—

Determine, under Community law, what constitutes an unlawful discharge of polluting substances at sea. In this it is following Marpol definitions to the letter.

| — | Guarantee that those responsible for these illegal discharges will be prosecuted and will receive sanctions, including, where appropriate, criminal sanctions in accordance with national legislation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Guarantee that those responsible for these illegal discharges will be prosecuted and will receive sanctions, including, where appropriate, criminal sanctions in accordance with national legislation.

| — | Draw up a list of all those whose liability can be invoked, not only captains and ship owners but also charterers, classification societies, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

Draw up a list of all those whose liability can be invoked, not only captains and ship owners but also charterers, classification societies, etc.

| — | Define the conditions in which the liability of each of these parties could be invoked. As regards discharges on the open seas and in exclusive economic zones, the Commission is tied to what is laid down in Marpol. However, as regards discharges in territorial waters, it may, in accordance with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, release the Union from Marpol, follow a more stringent line and lay down that liability can be invoked where there is serious negligence. |
| --- | --- |

—

Define the conditions in which the liability of each of these parties could be invoked. As regards discharges on the open seas and in exclusive economic zones, the Commission is tied to what is laid down in Marpol. However, as regards discharges in territorial waters, it may, in accordance with the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, release the Union from Marpol, follow a more stringent line and lay down that liability can be invoked where there is serious negligence.

This proposal for a Directive also deals with the question of the proof required to punish natural or legal persons responsible for an illegal discharge (whether deliberate or accidental). The Commission therefore calls on Member States to draw up ‘reliable methods for attributing pollutants detected at sea to a particular ship’. Numerous methods are currently being developed, such as specific on-board equipment which can automatically record unlawful substances which might be contained in discharges from ships.

The Commission attaches particular importance to this proposal and is counting on the resolute support of the Council and Parliament which are currently examining its text.

---