WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/02 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Temporary protection mechanism for the shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2002-04-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Korea, anti-dumping legislation, common commercial policy, competition policy, drafting of EU law, interinstitutional relations (EU), shipbuilding

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/61

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0923/02, E-0935/02, E-1122/02 and E-1133/02
given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

The Commission refers to its joint reply to recent Written Questions E-0073/02 by Mr Cashman,
E-0087/02 by Mrs Muscardini, E-0210/02 by Mr Kauppi, E-0344/02 by Mrs Korhola, E-0346/02 by
Mrs Matikainen-Kallström, E-0407/02 by Mrs Thomas-Mauro and E-0679/02 by Mrs Flemming (1). For
convenience, the Commission’s position is set out below.

The Commission recognises that the repatriation of mortal remains of a person who has died in another
Member State than his/her own is a sensitive and difficult issue which can cause great suffering for the
family involved.

The Commission is aware of some individual cases, in particular, through the recent written parliamentary
questions, where the repatriation of a deceased person from one Member State to another has raised
difficulties. However, the Commission does not have any information or statistics which would provide an
overview of a possible problem and its scope.

These issues potentially raise a number of questions, some of them in relation to different Community
policies, for instance, transport, health, free movement, etc. However, it does not appear that there would
be a clear Community competence to cover all these various aspects. Moreover, the regulations governing
the transfer of remains of dead persons are laid down in the International Agreement of Berlin (1937,
No 4391 League of Nations Treaty Series) and by the Agreement on the transfer of corpses of the Council
of Europe concluded in September 1973. In any event it should be recalled that Member States which
regulate the transport of deceased persons, must, in conformity with the case law of the Court of Justice,
apply any requirements on a non-discriminatory basis. Any derogation based on public health grounds
must also be in conformity with the case-law of the Court.

In the light of the above, the Commission will continue to follow these issues closely, but does not
envisage any specific initiative for the moment.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 178.

(2002/C 309 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Temporary protection mechanism for the shipbuilding industry

The conclusions of the Energy and Industry Council meeting of 4 and 5 December 2001 state that the
Council held a full debate on the proposal for a regulation establishing a temporary protection mechanism
for the Community shipbuilding industry, but, since a qualified majority was not secured for the
Commission proposal, the Council agreed to return to the subject at a forthcoming meeting.

Can the Council state:

(cid:1) what the main reasons were for the failure to adopt the Commission proposal;

(cid:1) when it expects to examine the proposal again?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Honourable Member is well aware that the Member States are still divided as to the what means to
deploy in order to combat unfair competition from Korea in the shipbuilding sector, some fearing that a
temporary protection mechanism would risk intra-Community distortions of competition and therefore
rejecting the principle of granting State aid.

C 309 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

At the Council meeting on 4 and 5 December 2001 a qualified majority of the Member States could not
be achieved and so it was not possible to adopt the Council Regulation concerning a temporary defensive
mechanism to assist the shipbuilding industry. The Council agreed in conclusion to return to this matter at
a future meeting and therefore placed it on the agenda for its meeting on 6 and 7 June. At its meeting on
27 June 2002 the Council adopted, by a qualified majority, a Regulation setting up a temporary defence
mechanism for the Community shipbuilding industry in order to counter the Republic of Korea’s unfair
commercial practices on world shipbuilding markets; the Danish, Netherlands, Finnish, Swedish and United
Kingdom delegations voted against the Regulation. The Regulation will apply as long as necessary, until the
conclusion of dispute-settlement proceedings initiated against Korea at the World Trade Organisation, and
will expire on 31 March 2004.

(2002/C 309 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(9 April 2002)

Subject: Making sea traffic safe

The wreck of the tanker ‘Erika’ on 12 December 1999, spilling 28 000 tonnes of fuel oil along the Breton
coast, caused massive and irreversible damage to maritime fauna and flora and wrecked the economic
fabric in respect of maritime and coastal resources.

’Erika’-type accidental pollution, despite the immediacy of its spectacular scale, represents only a fraction of
the discharges of oil into the sea. The bulk of hydrocarbons and other harmful and polluting substances
discharged into the sea and its eco-systems are the result of deliberate (cid:1) and therefore criminal (cid:1)
degassing or deballasting on the pretext of saving time or money on tank cleaning services. A figure of
2 million tonnes of hydrocarbons dumped illegally and virtually scot-free into the oceans every year is
claimed. Officially, the French Assembly estimates that this ‘routine pollution’ totals 600 000 tonnes every
year for the Mediterranean alone, i.e. the equivalent (cid:1) every week! (cid:1) of the damage inflicted on the
economy, the eco-system and future generations by the wreck of the ‘Erika’.

Can the Council draw up detailed current figures for the availability in the Member States and candidate
countries of port facilities and deballasting infrastructure, and likewise the networks for checking and
monitoring ships which are required to demonstrate the effectiveness of these installations?

What is the Council’s position on the application of strict automatic boarding measures against vessels
caught in the act or suspected of illegal degassing activities, and the introduction of a system of deposits,
without payment of which these vessels would not be allowed to leave Community waters, thus ensuring
that there would be judicial follow-up to these deliberate acts of damage to the environment?

Is the Council convinced of the need for a traceability system for products transported by sea, especially
pollutants, capable of establishing that crimes have been committed and ensuring that the perpetrators can
be identified?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

The Council attaches great importance to the prevention of discharges from ships of oil and other harmful
substances, and considers that the various initiatives taken in recent years to prevent accidental pollution
from ships should necessarily be complemented by measures to fight against illegal deballasting or
degassing.

As a preventive measure in this respect and in addition to the international instruments that exist in this
area, Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1),
which was adopted by the Council and the European Parliament in November 2000, establishes an
obligation for all ships calling at a port of a Member State, to deliver their ship-generated waste and cargo