WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3951/97 by Daniel VARELA SUANZES- CARPEGNA to the Commission. Clarification of the limits of the Argentinian EEZ
Date: 1997-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, VARELA SUANZES-CARPEGNA
Subjects: Argentina, exclusive economic zone, fishing area, international conflict, law of the sea, vessel

9. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 310/5

(98/C 310/05)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3951/97

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE) to the Commission

(12 December 1997)

Subject: Clarification of the limits of the Argentinian EEZ

The reason for the seizure of the Community vessel Arpo·n by the Argentinian authorities whilst it was fishing in
international waters near the Argentinian exclusive economic zone (EEZ) was the fact that the zone has been
imprecisely demarcated by the Argentinians, and this has given rise to a lengthy, costly and unwelcome conflict.

Can the Commission say what measures it has taken or is considering taking to ensure that the exact limits of the
EEZ in Argentinian waters are clearly demarcated and hence provide the necessary security for the Community
vessels fishing in international waters near that zone?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 1998)

On 16 September 1996, Argentina lodged the geographical details of its exclusive economic zone (EEZ) with the
United Nations in accordance with Article 75 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Community has a primary interest in ensuring compliance with the international law of the sea. However, it
has no authority to resolve disputes concerning the boundaries of that exclusive economic zone.

As the Honourable Member knows, the European Community and Argentina are involved in a joint project to
create a multilateral system of cooperation in managing and protecting the resources of the south-west Atlantic.
The Commission will raise the problem in this context, at the most appropriate time.

(98/C 310/06)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3954/97

by Pierre Bernard-Reymond (PPE) to the Commission

(12 December 1997)

Subject: Commission  reasoned  opinion  of  17  February  1997  prohibiting  the  (cid:145)Mutualite·(cid:146)  sickness  insurance

scheme from owning dental and medical practices or pharmacies as of 1 June 1997

Is  it  true  that  a  reasoned  opinion  prohibiting  the  (cid:145)Mutuality(cid:146)  sickness  insurance  scheme  from  owning  dental
practices as of 1 June 1997 was delivered by the European Commission on 17 February 1997?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 1998)

The Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against France, under Article 169 of the EC Treaty, for
incomplete transposal of certain insurance Directives, namely Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on
the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life
assurance  and  amending  Directives  73/239/EEC  and  88/357/EEC  (third  non-life  insurance  Directive (1))  and
Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
provisions  relating  to  direct  life  assurance  and  amending  Directives  79/267/EEC  and  90/619/EEC  (third  life
assurance Directive (2)). A reasoned opinion was delivered to France on 5 March 1997.

These  Directives,  which  lay  down  the  principles  that  authorisation  is  granted  and  prudential  and  financial
supervision  carried  out  by  the  insurance  undertaking(cid:146)s  home  Member  State,  have  been  applicable  since
1  July  1994.  Their  scope,  as  far  as  France  is  concerned,  covers  the  following  forms  of  undertaking:  (cid:145)socie·te·
anonyme(cid:146),  (cid:145)socie·te· d(cid:146)assurance  mutuelle(cid:146),  (cid:145)institution  de  pre·voyance  re·gie  par  le  code  rural(cid:146)  and  (cid:145)mutuelles
re·gies par le code de la mutualite·(cid:146).