WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/01 by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission. Maritime transport safety.
Date: 2001-10-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, flag of convenience, international standard, maritime transport, safety standard, transport safety, vessel

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/173

Following extensive consultation with its staff, the Commission is in the process of finalising a new system
of appraisal and promotion as a central part of Commission Reform. The system will bring significant and
helpful simplification and it will introduce very transparent procedures, while guaranteeing that promotion
is made on merit that is measured through full and fair individual appraisal.

The Commission implements all the judgements of the CFI concerning promotion and will continue to do
so. The Court has never given any indication or view which supports the Honourable Members’
unsubstantiated assertion that the Commission displays ‘a degree of contempt for the CFI and its judges’.

(2002/C 134 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Maritime transport safety

The sinking of the Erika brought a new awareness of the state of some ships navigating in Community
waters: badly maintained, sailing under flags of convenience, with unscrupulous owners and crewmembers
who count for nothing.

Although, thanks to the Erika I and Erika II packages, Community rules are moving slowly towards
enhanced maritime safety protection, for people, ships and the environment, public opinion is impatient
and highly critical of the abuses coming to light.

The most recent example is that of the ‘Han’, and the last few months of its life can be summarised as
follows:

1 In August 2000 a 28-year-old, rusty cargo ship arrived in Brest (Finistère, France) to take on board the
Erika’s pumping equipment. This cargo ship, which was sailing at the time under a Bolivian flag, had a
Pakistani crew and was called the ‘Palatial’. It was impounded by the maritime authorities, which
stipulated more than 40 separate items of repair work. After being purchased by a Greek shipowner
(FEF 55 000), it became the ‘Han’.

1 While the ship was impounded in port, the crew was not paid. The authorities discovered that the
Bolivian papers and registration certificates were false: the cargo ship thus no longer had a nationality.
It was no longer simply fit for the scrap heap; it was also a ghost ship.

1 Finally, in February 2001 the ship regained a nationality: it was registered in Sao Tomé and Principe.
After the ship had spent 171 days in dock in Brest, the authorities allowed it to leave, towed by a
Polish tug, without the crew, who had been paid and repatriated, but with its cargo, and subject to
one condition: banned from the ports which had signed the Paris Memorandum, its destination had to
be Piraeus, in Greece, where it would be broken up.

1 Six months later, a Portuguese classification company issued a navigation certificate to a ship, the
‘Tom T’. This cargo ship was sailing under a Panamanian flag and belonged to a company based in the
Marshall Islands in Micronesia … It was the ‘Han’. What goes around, comes around.

Having been neither scrapped nor repaired, it is continuing to sail in international waters.

Had the Commission made provision for such a case? If so, what action can be taken under Community
law to prevent such abuses?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

One of the aims of the European maritime safety policy is to eradicate sub-standard shipping and ships,
such as appears to be the case with the vessel Tom-T (ex-HAN). The specific European rules in force relate

C 134 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

to Directive 95/21/EC (1) and the Paris memorandum on Port State Control, the application of which in
this case has imposed the banning of the vessel from entering any port in the Community area. The fact
that the vessel has changed name does not change the banning order of the ship. The Commission has
verified in the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) database that the vessel Tom-T is effectively
banned from entry into ports of any of the 19 contracting parties working together in the Paris MoU
framework. Hence, at this moment it is very unlikely that the vessel is trading or will be trading between
European ports.

However, as pointed out, this is an international problem. While the Commission may be successful to ban
the vessel
in Europe the same vessel may continue to trade elsewhere in the world. Shipowners or
operators that do not care to follow any of the internationally agreed rules should not be able to find and
fly any flag or trade. Unfortunately that is not the situation. Such problems are to be addressed to the
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and in this respect the recently published white paper on
transport (2) proposes that the Community should become a contracting party to the IMO.

As regards the point mentioned by the Honourable Member concerning the certificates delivered by the
Portuguese classification society, it appears following some investigation, that all certificates issued were
withdrawn and returned to that classification society in August 2000.

(1) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community
ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship
safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(2) COM(2001) 370 final ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’.

(2002/C 134 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3008/01

by Antonio Mussa (UEN), Cristiana Muscardini (UEN)
and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: The plague in Kazakhstan: risk to Europe and the United States

In Roman times the plague was spread throughout Europe and from 1 347 to 1 348 swept through the
whole of the Mediterranean area, including Europe and north Africa via Genovese ships returning from the
Black Sea and due to the rapid movements of troops of the Mongol Empire, which spread the plague
bacterium, through rat fleas on the horses and backpacks of soldiers coming from areas far away where
the plague was endemic.

In the present historical context, where military operations are being carried out on a vast scale in areas
posing health risks there may be a re-emergence of plague foci; even though military personnel and staff
already employed in health care are protected by appropriate precautions such as vaccination and
prophylactics, these do not rule out the presence of virulent strains in laboratories, which are therefore
much more contagious than the original strain.

There is also a risk of the plague being spread when those employed in military, technical assistance and
health operations return home.

For certain types of plague 1 bubonic, pneumonic or septicaemic 1 early diagnosis is the determining
factor in ensuring suitable treatment to cure or prevent the illness.