WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Friesland salvage operation.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, arrest, civil procedure, criminal procedure, free movement of persons, ingot, national law, sea, transport accident, vessel

C 137 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

How should the victim have proceeded in order to secure justice and the prospect of due process? Does the
difference in Member States’
judicial customs constitute such an obstacle to the freedoms created for
citizens in the EU that those freedoms cannot be considered real in practice? How could the position of
rape victims be improved through joint action in the EU?

Reply

(18 February 2003)

The Council is not in a position to comment on individual criminal cases in the Member States.

By adopting the Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (1) the Council has laid down general rules regarding the position of victims of criminal
offences.

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001, p. 1.

(2003/C 137 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3018/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Heavy goods vehicle traffic through the Mont Blanc tunnel

Italy and France now appear to have agreed that two-way HGV traffic should be resumed in the Mont
Blanc tunnel. This is causing concern among local inhabitants since the current operating rules (set out in
a ministerial decree adopted in France) set a limit of 240 on the number of lorries that may travel through
the tunnel every hour, and this ceiling is out of step with the technical limits obtaining under the current
safety regulations. There are therefore calls for this figure to be revised in line with the Alpine Convention,
the Transport Protocol thereto and the restrictive measures applying on the Austrian passes (ecopoints and
night-time ban) and the St Gotthard route in Switzerland. Would the Commission state its views on the
matter and provide any relevant information?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2002)

The theoretical number of lorries that may travel through a tunnel depends on the rules limiting the
distance between vehicles, the maximum permitted speed and the specific restrictions for each tunnel.
No legal limit for the number of lorries has been adopted at international level.

The Commission should very shortly be proposing a Directive on safety in tunnels, harmonising some of
these elements. However, the tunnel managers will be authorised to apply more stringent rules where these
are necessary to ensure safety.

Regarding the Mont Blanc tunnel, in March 2002 the French and Italian authorities said that when two-
way traffic was resumed, the average daily number would be lower than it was before the fire of
24 March 1999, which was approximately 2000 lorries per day. This is well below the maximum
theoretical number.

(2003/C 137 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3028/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Friesland salvage operation

Is the Commission aware of the case of Peter Devlin, who led a team of divers (British nationals) salvaging
tin ingots with the authorisation of the Spanish Government from the wreck of the Friesland off the

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/147

Galicia coast, but was subsequently arrested with his colleagues in June and now faces criminal and civil
proceedings in Galicia for activities authorised by the national government?

Has
the Commission made representations to the Spanish national authorities and the Galician
Government at what appears to be a clear breach of the Treaty of Rome’s provisions on the free
movement of goods, services, capital and people?

Does it feel that Mr Devlin and his team may have a claim for compensation if it turns out that this is
merely an internal Spanish quarrel?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the case involving criminal and civil proceedings in Spain to which to the
honourable Member’s question refers.

It should be noted that it is not possible, on the basis of the information given in the written question,
to judge the substance of the case. In particular, the question does not point to any factors that could
constitute a manifest infringement of the provisions on free movement laid down in the Treaty of Rome.

(2003/C 137 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3032/02

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE), Herman Vermeer (ELDR),
Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE), Niels Busk (ELDR)
and Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Negotiations with Norway, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Russia on the international distribution

of blue whiting catch quotas

When will the next round of negotiations take place between the Community and non-member countries,
such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands, on the distribution of catch quotas for blue whiting in the
North-East Atlantic? Has the Commission made any progress in the negotiations with the non-member
countries concerned during and since the last round of negotiations and, if so, what progress?

Does the Commission realise that the Community decision of July 1999 unilaterally to restrict blue
whiting catch quotas for its own fishermen has resulted in the EU share of the catch (i.e. catches in EU
waters plus EU catches in international waters) falling from approximately 65 % in the period 1993 to
1997 to less than 20 % today?

Is the Commission aware that the approach it has adopted hitherto has caused serious economic hardship
to Community fishermen, whereas no progress whatsoever has been made in terms of the responsible
management of blue whiting stocks and the Community’s negotiating position has been seriously
weakened by the drastic fall in its share of the catch?

Is the Commission aware that its attitude sends out the wrong signal to Community fishermen and will
undermine the basis for responsible management? Does the Commission not also consider that the policy
of unilaterally responsible fishing adopted by the Community may in fact be achieving quite the opposite
of what is intended?

Will the Commission ensure in the near future that the historical fishing rights of the Community continue
to be honoured?

Does the Commission not also believe that in the current situation other measures should be considered
(additional catch quotas for Community fishermen, trade measures, etc), in order to reach an agreement
that is consistent with the Community’s historical fishing rights?