WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Competition between large ports with a common hinterland and squandering of public money in an effort to beat the competition.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: North Sea, common transport policy, competition law, competitiveness, harbour installation, market access, ports policy, public financing

C 222 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The current Common Position 2002/831/CFSP, adopted by the Council on 21 October 2002, provides for
a number of targeted sanctions against the Burmese regime, including a visa ban against and the freezing
of the assets of present and former members of the Burmese government, members of the State Peace and
Development Councils (SPDC), former members of SLORC, and leading members of the military.

The Council has not, however, taken a position on possible investments by European enterprises in
2.
Burma, nor has it discussed the specific issue of the BAT/Rothmans joint venture with Economic Holding
Myanmar.

(1) OJ L 287, 8.11.1996, pp. 1-2.
(2) OJ L 122, 24.5.2000, pp. 1-5.
(3) OJ L 285, 23.10.2002, pp. 7-11.

(2003/C 222 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3530/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Competition between large ports with a common hinterland and squandering of public money in

an effort to beat the competition

1.
In connection with this issue, does the Commission recall the discussion which its predecessor held
with the European Parliament about the need to regulate competition between maritime ports, a discussion
which ultimately failed to lead to any proposals to that effect in the proposal for a directive on market
access to port services which was aimed at promoting competition within the maritime ports and debated
by the European Parliament at first reading on 14 November 2001?

2.
Is the Commission aware that the problem of competition concerns principally ports on the eastern
shore of the North Sea which all serve the same densely-populated hinterland more or less, i.e. the ports,
located in four different Member States, of Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Antwerp,
Zeebrugge and Dunkirk, which, consequently, compete with each other for the same cargoes instead of
seeking to share out the trade on a sensible basis?

Is the Commission also aware that, over the years, competition between the ports listed in question 2
3.
has led to each of them outbidding each other with the help of government investment, to the creation of
surplus capacity, given the trends in the amount of maritime transport, to the constant endeavour to offer
lower rates than the nearest competitor port, to maximum opacity as regards their own financial input,
and to spying on the competition?

4.
Does the Commission recall how difficult it was to reach an EU-wide agreement on a common
system for the collection of ship-generated waste and cargo residues applicable to the North Sea and the
Baltic as well as to the Mediterranean? Does it admit that there are major differences between the small
ports scattered around the shore of the Mediterranean, which have a limited sphere of influence, and the
large ports located within each other’s sphere of influence on the densely-populated shores of the North
Sea? Can a common type of EU-wide operational management be imposed on ports operating under
widely differing conditions, or does the Commission see any grounds for promoting the drawing up of
more restricted rules to apply to ports which have a strong influence on each other’s operations?

5.
Does the Commission accept that, as far as competition between ports is concerned, the existence or
not of the EU is a matter of supreme indifference? Or is it seeking a separate solution to this problem, in
addition to the proposed directive? Will this result in legislative proposals, and is the memorandum which
it has undertaken to publish to be seen as a preliminary stage in such legislation?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

1. and 5.
The Commission recalls all previous debates on a European ports policy. It wishes to remind
the Honourable Member that the Treaty’s rules on state aid apply to ports. The essence of these rules was
‘Reinforcing
set out in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and the Council

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/83

Quality Service in Sea Ports: A Key for European Transport’ (1) of 13 February 2001. Following requests by
Parliament and Council, a more detailed document has been made available to Council and Parliament to
facilitate the current debate on the Directive on Port Services.

The Commission is aware of the fact that, in particular since the completion of the internal
2. to 4.
market, there is intense competition between ports. This is particularly the case, as for example in North
West (NW) Europe, where ports serve essentially the main hinterland, although competition between ports
is by no means limited to such figuration.

The Commission is aware of the fact that public and private bodies in NW European ports have made
significant port investments over recent years and continue to do so. There is no indication that these
investments have led to serious overcapacity. Indeed, indications are that generally a balance was found
between capacity demand and supply.

Public investments may be made provided the state aid rules of the EC Treaty are respected. The
Commission would follow up complaints, as it has done in the past, in order to assess whether the rules
have been respected. However,
the Commission does not believe that an Union-wide operational
management body should be set up to distribute cargoes and business between ports and the NW
European ports in particular, because such body would be unlikely to substitute adequately the commercial
activities of ports and their customers.

for

the period 2000-2006, under

The Community initiative Interreg III
the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF), can contribute to promote the co-operation among ports in view of achieving
a more balanced and sustainable development of maritime transport in Europe. In the framework of
certain programmes, such as ‘North Sea area’,
‘Atlantic area’ or
‘Western Mediterranean’ national, regional or local authorities and other actors can deal with the questions
raised under point 4 and work together to address issues such as sea transport and co-operation among
ports. More information can be obtained on http:/europa.eu.int./comm/regional_policy/interreg3.

‘North West Europe’,

‘Baltic Sea area’,

(1) COM(2001) 35 final.

(2003/C 222 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/02

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

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation

For the decade following the collapse of the Communist bloc in Europe, the EU set as priorities the
implementation and follow-up of the process of economic and industrial transition in the countries of
in response to their prompt application to join the EU and in preparation for their
Eastern Europe,
accession. Under these circumstances and faced with the challenges presented by a changing Europe, the
EU established an ad hoc bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The transition process has benefited greatly in each of the accession countries from EBRD guarantees,
funding and strategies. That the EU has now set a firm date for accession is testament to the advanced
stage of the process, and, therefore, leaves room for new and equally pressing priorities.

The challenges presented by natural disasters are at least as great as the previous challenge of transforming
the Communist economies in the eastern half of Europe. The effects of disruptions to ecosystems or in
terms of climate, weather or marine life, which are currently being vigorously felt on our continent, take a
huge financial toll. The scale of the cost of the present environmental crises and, above all, of those to
come has recently been estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at some
USD 150 billion a year.