WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Situation regarding unsafe nuclear reactors in the applicant countries.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, Hungary, accession to the European Union, nuclear reactor, nuclear safety, recommendation (EU), report

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/87

When the ERIKA I and II packages were finalised, the Fifteen approved the principle of a political
commitment by the EU Member States to apply the measures they contained immediately, before the
directives were transposed. What means is the Council prepared to employ to ensure that this actually
happens?

It appears from initial enquiries that the Prestige had set off from Saint Petersburg and was bound for
Singapore. It is therefore not solely a European responsibility to ensure that the principles of maritime
safety are observed, and local action should not preclude global action. Is the Council
in favour of
convening an urgent meeting with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) in order to put in place
the preconditions for legislation at world level?

What is the Council’s position with regard to a strategy modelled on ‘closer cooperation’ between some
Member States with regard to safety at sea? Would the Council be prepared to accept that a requirement
for double-hull vessels be immediately applicable in some particularly sensitive maritime areas, such as the
Mediterranean?

(2003/C 222 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3761/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Spanish proposal to the UN

Articles in the press report that Spain proposes to submit a proposal to the UN General Assembly under
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to amend the provisions governing safety on vessels
and the prevention of pollution of the sea. In particular, the Spanish proposal calls for a shorter phasing-
out period for single-hull tankers.

Has Spain put forward a similar point of view in the Council and, if so, does it reflect the unanimous view
of the Member States?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3563/02, E-3581/02, E-3582/02, E-3583/02,
E-3584/02, E-3587/02, E-3589/02, E-3625/02 and E-3761/02

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Members to the declaration made by the Presidency on behalf of
the Council on all the points raised in their questions during the plenary session of the European
Parliament in December 2002, and to its replies to Questions H-833/02, H-839/02, H-847/02 and H-871/
02 put by Messrs Josu Ortuondo Larrea, Manuel Medina Ortega, Camilo Nogueira Román and John
Cushnahan respectively at Question Time on 15 January 2003 in Strasbourg.

(2003/C 222 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Situation regarding unsafe nuclear reactors in the applicant countries

The Council’s working group on nuclear safety is in the process of assessing the safety of nuclear plants in
the applicant countries. As late as the summer of 2001, this working group published a list of several
safety problems at the nuclear plants at Temelin in the Czech Republic and Paks in Hungary, for example.

C 222 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

According to critics of nuclear plants in the applicant countries, nothing much has been done to improve
safety other than numerous documents being delivered from the capitals of the applicant countries to
Brussels. No specific upgrading of safety seems to have taken place and no evidence has been produced to
show that the nuclear plants are safe.

Can the Council say what measures will be taken in regard to upgrading nuclear safety at Temelin and
Paks and in the applicant countries in general?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would like to point out that in May 2001 the Working Party on Nuclear Safety (WPNS)
produced an initial report with a number of safety recommendations addressed to the candidate countries;
it drew up a second report in June 2002, on the basis of the replies received from those countries and
their commitments to take the appropriate measures. The Honourable Member will note that the number
of recommendations in the second report has been reduced considerably, both for the candidate countries
in general as well as for the two countries he mentioned in his question, i.e. the Czech Republic and
Hungary. All these countries have accepted and addressed all the WPNS recommendations contained in the
initial report and have promised action to deal with the problems outstanding and the questions which are
still unsolved. The review which gave rise to these reports was conducted without prejudice to the
responsibilities of the national authorities in the candidate countries. This was not a check for the purposes
of a normal approval procedure, but an assessment such as usually carried out by experts.

For further information, the Council invites the Honourable Member to consult the regular evaluation
reports the Commission is producing, in which the reports already mentioned and the candidate countries’
implementation of safety recommendations are taken into account.

(2003/C 222 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Proposal for a secrecy clause in the sixth research framework programme

It is being said in Sweden that the proposal to incorporate a secrecy clause in the sixth research framework
programme is not consistent with the Swedish Constitution. According to the newspaper Ny Teknik, in the
draft contracts under the new framework programme, secrecy is the rule and openness the exception.

Under Swedish law, however, the universities must be open to scrutiny and they do not have the right to
classify research of public interest as secret. The Swedish Ministry for Education has reportedly informed
the Commission of
its wish to adhere to the same rules which applied for the fifth and fourth
programmes.

Does the Commission intend to take the Swedish views into account or is the abovementioned proposal
for a secrecy clause already fixed?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2003)

The report quoted in the newspaper Ny Teknik refers to one of the initial versions of the draft contract for
research projects under
the sixth framework programme. Following comments from the Swedish
delegation during a meeting of the contracts working group of Member States and Associated States, the