WRITTEN QUESTION E-2462/02 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Maríne craft pollution.
Date: 2002-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental monitoring, environmental statistics, marine pollution, pollution control measures, pollution from ships, pollution of waterways, wastewater

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/175

The implementation of the Water Framework Directive (3) foresees an analysis of pressures and impacts of
human activity on the status of surface waters and groundwater by river basin until 2004. This exercise,
which has to be undertaken by the Member States, should give further information on still untreated
waste-water discharges in future.

In the framework of the marine conventions as Oslo-Paris Commission (Ospar), Helsinki Commission
(Helcom), and others no estimates are foreseen at present.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 67, 3.7.1998, p. 29.
(3) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2462/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Maríne craft pollution

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of untreated effluent discharged into the EU’s seas and rivers
by boats and ships, and will it state whether it proposes any measures to reduce this amount?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2002)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that discharges of oil from seagoing ships, in
general, result from the deliberate washing of tanks or the flushing of bilge or ballast water. Several
international organisations are involved in preventing this type of marine pollution (e.g. Helsinki
Convention, Bonn Agreement and Barcelona Convention). Reliable estimates of the total amount of oil
information from airborne surveillance
discharged by seagoing ships are not available. However,
(coordinated by these organisations) clearly indicates that violations of existing regulations (i.e. Annex I
of the Maríne Pollution Control Convention (Marpol) 73/78 (1)) are frequent in all European seas, resulting
in the oiling of seabirds, shellfish, other organisms and the coastline. So far, there is no clear downward
trend.

In its Communication ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’,
Commission initiates action aimed at phasing out such illegal discharges by the earliest possible date.

the

Discharges of sewage from seagoing ships are covered by Annex IV of Marpol 73/78 (2). However, this
Annex has not yet entered into force due to insufficient ratifications. In the context of the Maríne Strategy,
the Commission will undertake to achieve a rapid entry into force of this Annex.

The main Community instrument relevant to these types of marine pollution is the Directive on port state
control and on port reception facilities (3). The provisions of this Directive cover a range of ships wastes
including oil and sewage. Furthermore, a Community framework was set up in 2000, inter alia, to support
Member States efforts in responding to deliberate marine pollution.

C 52 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Reliable estimates of discharges from ships in European rivers are not available. At present such discharges
are covered by various pieces of regional or national legislation. However, this situation should change in
the near future as these discharges are covered under the Water Framework Directive (4).

(1)

(2)

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.

(3) Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for

ship-generated waste and cargo residues, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/02

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Conclusion of appeal proceedings Nos. 98/4010 and 98/4826

A ruling is to be made in cases 98/4010 and 98/4826 pending before the Commission as to the
compatibility with EU law of national provisions laying down restrictions for the protection of races of
bees. The Commission announced in September 2001 that these cases would be concluded by the end of
2001, yet proceedings are still under way.

The government of the province of Lower Austria intends to use the Commission’s decision as a basis to
amend the law on bee-keeping. In view of the uncertainty of the legal situation as long as the above cases
have not been concluded, there is a risk of persistent crossbreeding with detrimental consequences for bee-
keeping.

How does the Commission justify the lengthiness of the proceedings in the above cases?

Does the Commission consider that the cause of the delay in concluding the proceedings is a conflict of
competence between the Agriculture DG and the Health and Consumer Protection DG? Which Directorate-
General is responsible for settling these cases?

When will the Commission take a decision in the above cases?

Is the Commission aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice in a similar case, C-67/97 of 3 December
1998, that restrictions for the protection of races of bees were justified? What is the Commission’s view of
the possible application of Court of Justice case-law to the cases in question?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission received the complaints in question on 3 November 1998 and 12 August 1998
respectively. Contacts with the Austrian authorities were taken at an early stage. The reorganisation of the
Commission in 1999 caused a general delay in the treatment of complaints. However, by the end of 2001,
the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the information received did not demonstrate that the
Austrian law in question constituted a breach of Community law. In accordance with the procedural rules
applicable to infringement investigations, the Commission sent a letter to the complainants informing
them that the cases were to be closed. In their answers to this letter, the complainants contested, however,
some of the factual elements provided by the Austrian authorities, elements which were relevant for the
assessment of the cases. The Commission is therefore obliged to reopen the investigations and this is why
the complaints are still open.

Following the said reorganisation of
Directorate-General
Commission services on these complaints.

is the Health and Consumer Protection
that is responsible for the complaints in question. There is no conflict between

the Commission,

it