WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Reduction of the transitional period for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers in response to the devastating disaster off the coast of Galicia.
Date: 2002-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: costing, environmental protection, man-made disaster, maritime law, maritime safety, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, tanker

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/103

There are three separate categories of assistant teacher:

(cid:1) those recruited by the Headteachers, who provide a service on a temporary basis, either part-time by
giving lessons outside the hours assigned to the seconded teachers or full-time in occupation of posts
not filled by the latter

(cid:1) substitutes recruited by the Headteachers to replace teaching staff absent from time to time,

(cid:1) teachers of religious knowledge appointed by the competent authorities.

It is not the case that assistant teachers are only subject to the legislation of the country in which

3.
they are working.

They are subject to the Regulations indicated above, which contain specific provisions on certain matters
such as salary, career of religious knowledge teachers etc. On matters such as rights, obligations,
responsibilities, tasks, appeals etc. these Regulations make reference to the Regulations for Seconded
Personnel, and on others such as social security, taxation etc. to the legislation of the country in which the
school is located.

4.
It is true that the Regulations for Assistant Teachers differ from those for seconded personnel. These
differences cannot, however, be interpreted as infringing the ‘principle of equality’ and that of ‘equal pay
for equal work’. They reflect differences in employment circumstances between the two groups. For
example, it would be difficult to apply the length of service and career structure provisions for seconded
teachers to staff recruited to answer a temporary need.

5.
Under the abovementioned Convention of 21 June 1994 and the Regulations of 26 and 27 April
1996 assistant teachers may dispute acts of the European Schools to which they object before, as
appropriate, the Complaints Board or the courts of the country in which the school is located. These are
the only bodies competent to pronounce on the legality of disputed acts.

The Commission has no knowledge of the cases claiming failure by the Belgian European Schools to
labour law, or of failure by them to respect Council Directive 2000/78/EC of
comply with national
27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation.

(2003/C 161 E/106)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3554/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Reduction of the transitional period for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers in response to the

devastating disaster off the coast of Galicia

1.
Does the Commission have any estimate of the costs which will be incurred between now and 2015,
i.e. during the period before the total ban on single-hull tankers entering EU waters and ports comes into
force, as a result of the predictable probability that single-hull tankers will run aground on the coasts of
the EU Member States or will be involved in collisions, break up or sink in the surrounding seas?

2. What is the Commission’s estimate of the cost to the authorities concerned of cleaning up the
resultant spills during the period 2005-2015, for example the cost of cleaning coastlines, surviving birds
and seawater?

3. What is the Commission’s estimate of the cost which will be borne by industry during the period
2005-2015 due to the inability of such sectors as coastal fisheries and tourism to operate on account of
pollution?

4. What is its estimate of the costs which would be incurred by the shipping companies concerned,
during the period 2005-2015, if the single-hull oil tankers currently still registered in EU Member States
were to be banned from 2005, so that the companies had to write them off?

C 161 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

5. What is its estimate of the costs which would be incurred by the shipping companies concerned,
during the period 2005-2015, if single-hull tankers which are registered outside the EU but belong to
companies within the EU or visit EU ports frequently were to be banned from 2005?

Can the Commission confirm that, when it previously decided that the number of single-hull tankers
6.
should gradually fall to zero over a long period, its concern was not so much with the expectation of
major disasters in Europe as to ensure that ‘rustbucket’ tankers which were being banned from American
waters could not continue to be used in Europe for a long time to come?

Does the Commission consider that, because of the devastating impact of the sinking of the tanker
7.
‘Prestige’ off the coast of Galicia, the spread of oil along the coasts of Spain, Portugal and possibly France
and the associated costs, a new situation has arisen in the light of which it is desirable to take the initiative
and adopt a more stringent policy than hitherto on single-hull tankers, so as to substantially reduce the
period during which single-hull tankers are still permitted to enter EU waters and ports?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

1. to 5.
The Commission is not able at this stage to provide the Honourable Member with figures
comparing the costs for Member States of accidents which might be caused by single-hull tankers between
now and their total ban, or the costs for shipping companies of the early withdrawal of such tankers. The
Commission is of course not in a position to know the number of accidents which might take place in the
future.

The Commission can however confirm that its action is motivated by the fear of Europe being

6.
affected by further oil spills.

Contrary to the assertions of the Honourable Member, however, the Commission did not opt for a longer
period for the progressive banning of single-hull tankers. The timetable in its initial proposal was in fact
more stringent than the Regulation that was finally adopted by the Parliament and the Council.

Accordingly, the timetable proposed by the Commission indicated that Category 1 single-hull tankers such
as the ‘Erika’ or ‘Prestige’ should be withdrawn at 23 years of age. If this proposal had been maintained, the
Prestige would have been decommissioned on 1 September 2002 instead of 15 March 2005.

It must nevertheless be stressed that the Community Regulation only prohibits vessels of this kind from
having access to the ports of Member States, and does not prevent them from transiting along European
coastlines, given the obligations imposed by international law.

In a letter dated 17 January addressed to the President of the Council, Mr Simitis, moreover, the President
of the Commission gave notice of the Commission’s intention to ask for a negotiating mandate to propose
an amendment to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to allow coastal States to protect
themselves better, including in the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, against the dangers of vessels ‘at
risk’ in transit.

7.
Finally, the Commission fully agrees that the devastating impact of the sinking of the Prestige tanker
and the associated costs do give rise to a new situation. The Commission has moreover seized the
opportunity afforded by increased public awareness of the risks of transporting heavy fuel oil by sea to ask
the Member States to bring forward the application of the Erika I and Erika II statutory provisions and to
propose new measures.

This approach has been supported unanimously. For instance, following speeches by the Commission in
the plenary sessions of November and December 2002, the European Parliament adopted resolutions on
21 November and 19 December 2002 calling for the Union to take immediate measures to combat
pollution and to improve maritime safety. Similarly, at its meeting on 6 December 2002, the Transport
Council supported the proposals made by the Commission in its Communication of 3 December 2002.
Finally, the Copenhagen European Council on 12 and 13 December 2002 acknowledged the Commission’s
diligence and congratulated the institution on the action taken by it to cope with the consequences of the
sinking of the Prestige.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/105

In this context, on 20 December 2002 the Commission forwarded to the European Parliament and to the
Council a proposal for a regulation2 aimed at prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel products in single-
hull tankers bound for or leaving the ports of the Union, to shorten the period adopted as part of the
Erika I package within which single-hull tankers must be withdrawn and to impose reinforced structural
inspections of single-hull tankers from fifteen years of age (the Condition Assessment Scheme or special
inspection regime).

(2003/C 161 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3556/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2002)

Subject: Environmental agreements

The Commission recently published a communication on the subject of environmental agreements (1). The
Commission acknowledges the contribution of environmental agreements to the realisation of environ-
mental policy objectives.

The Netherlands has some experience of environmental agreements. A successful example is the Packaging
Agreement. As a result of this agreement, and with the help of a proactive stance by business, the
Netherlands is well on the way to fulfilling the objectives of the European packaging directive (94/62/
EC) (2) rapidly and in a cost-effective manner. Despite the proven success of the packaging agreement, the
Commission has decided to bring an action against the Netherlands in the Court of Justice for improper
implementation of the packaging directive.

Does the Commission consider it contradictory to be promoting the conclusion of voluntary agreements at
European level while putting obstacles in their way at national
level? If so, what action does the
Commission intend to take to eliminate this contradiction?

Does the Commission share my opinion that it must give priority in its task of ensuring that European
legislation is correctly implemented to cases in which the objectives of the legislation in question are not
being fulfilled?

(1) Commission Communication, Environmental Agreements at Community Level (cid:1) Within the Framework of the
Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment (COM(2002) 412 fin. of 17 July
2002.

(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the environmental agreement on
packaging concluded between the Dutch authorities and the private sector that the Commission has on
record has expired.
In addition, the measures communicated by the Netherlands to the Commission
regarding the transposition of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
packaging and packaging waste (1) do not provide for the formal setting up of collection, recycling and
recovery systems for this waste stream as required by its Article 7(1).

There is no contradiction between the fact that legal action is taken against the Netherlands and the
content of the recent Communication from the Commission on Environmental Agreements at Community
Level within the Framework of the Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory
Environment (2). The Communication sets out the criteria and modalities for the acknowledgement of such
agreements at Community level. It does not promote the use of this instrument as a means to fulfil legal
obligations, neither at Community nor at Member State level. Furthermore, Directive 94/62/EC was
adopted prior to the Communication and the latter does not modify or substitute the existing obligations
under this Directive. The Commission would like to point out, however, that it does not exclude that the
attainment of the objectives of Directive 94/62/EC may involve voluntary agreements.