WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The ERIKA legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, coastal pollution, compulsory insurance, drafting of EU law, fund (EU), indemnification, maritime transport, oil pollution, penalty, polluter pays principle

C 222 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

More generally, the Commission believes that the law of the sea is currently too much in favour of the
right to free navigation, at the expense of coastal States’ interests. These States must be able to defend
themselves against the threat of manifestly sub-standard ships.
In this context, and as stated in its
communication of 3 December 2002,
take steps to have the International
Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

the Commission will

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
(2) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 222 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3591/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: The ‘ERIKA’ legislative packages and the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990

‘Aegean Sea’,

‘Urquiola’ and ‘Casón’ (cid:1) fail to include within the ‘ERIKA’

On what grounds did the Commission (cid:1) in the aftermath of the wreck of the ‘ERIKA’ tanker and even
prior to the successive disasters which have affected the Galician coast, in the shape of the wrecks of the
‘Polycommander’,
legislative
packages the type of strict financial guarantee and safety requirements which are placed on shipowners
and vessels by the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (passed following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ disaster), involving
unlimited financial liability, an obligation on vessel owners to tender a guarantee of USD 1 billion, and a
dual-hull requirement for tankers present in US waters? In view of the gaps affecting EU legislation and the
Union’s responsibility, is it possible that the Oil Pollution Act has had the counter-productive effect of
creating a situation of negative selection, in which the better-equipped vessels supply the US (where no
further tragic disasters have occurred since that time), while their worse-equipped counterparts supply the
EU’s Member States, which then have to face the disasters which we are all aware of, including those
which have affected Galicia?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns regarding the perverse effects the US Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 may be having. Due to this unilateral action by the United States there really is a
risk that ships that are less safe will be taking to European waters. The Commission responded to this risk
with the measures in the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages.

In the ERIKA II package in particular, the Commission had proposed to raise the maximum limit of
compensation to oil pollution victims substantially by creating a fund for the compensation of oil
pollution damage in European waters (the COPE Fund), which was intended to raise the maximum
compensation limit to EUR 1 billion from the current limit of EUR 185 million (1). This measure would
make it possible to compensate fully all the victims of oil pollution in European Union waters and to
speed up the compensation process.

However, after the opinion delivered by Parliament at the first reading, the Council did not follow up this
proposal, preferring to give its backing to the creation of a similar fund at international level. Unlike the
United States,
liability in an international
framework.

the EU would be taking action on polluters’

therefore,

In its communication of 3 December 2002 (2), the Commission, concerned at the lack of progress in this
area, called on the Member States to ratify without delay the protocol establishing a complementary fund
for compensation for oil pollution damage and to ensure that the fund covers damage up to EUR 1 billion
and is fully operational before the end of 2003. It also asked the Member States to impose adequate
penalties on operators who cause pollution by negligent behaviour.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/93

In addition, as the Commission has stressed on several occasions, the complementary international fund
will be an acceptable alternative to the COPE Fund only if the maximum limit for compensation is at least
EUR 1 billion and if all the coastal Member States participate in it from the outset. Failing this it would be
essential to adopt the Commission’s initial proposal to create a COPE Fund, as amended after Parliament’s
approval.

As regards concrete action, the Commission has already begun to prepare a new set of legislative measures
to provide for financial penalties to be imposed on any person (i.e. not only the shipowner, but also the
owner of the cargo, the classification society or any other person concerned) liable for causing pollution
through negligence. Steps will be proposed to counter deliberate discharges by ships, together with
measures aimed at collecting evidence and prosecuting the perpetrators. The Commission intends to make
it clear that such polluters cannot disclaim liability on the grounds that they are contributors to the IOPC
Fund.

(1) OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 222 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Car safety

Roll-cages, airbags, safety-belt restraint systems and electronic control systems save dozens of lives every
year. However, there are drawbacks. According to the rescue services, firemen are forced to proceed very
carefully in their efforts to free injured people from wrecked cars, given that sensors activating airbags and
safety-belt restraint systems may be situated throughout the bodywork. This leads to delays in the freeing
of accident victims. Fire brigades are urging all automobile manufacturers to provide information for each
of their models detailing how airbag systems can be disabled and the sections of bodywork rescue workers
should focus on when using hydraulic cutters. The rescue services would then simply have to enter the
type of car involved in an accident into their computer in order to ascertain how victims can be freed
most effectively. The rescue services are complaining that Volvo is the only automobile manufacturer to
have responded positively to this request for information.

Is the Commission aware of the problem that it is becoming ever more difficult to free trapped accident
victims quickly?

What view does the Commission take of the call made by the rescue services?

Is the Commission aware that automobile manufacturers seem reluctant to answer the question put by the
rescue services?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Commission has not been informed of the specific problems which seem to arise during operations to
free accident victims from vehicles fitted with automatic-release restraint or protection systems, such as
airbags. The Commission is aware that more and more cars come fitted with such systems for the better
protection of their occupants against frontal and side impacts. It should be made clear that such equipment
is neither compulsory under Community legislation nor regulated by it. Logically, however, it must be
recognised that in situ operations to free accident victims when such systems are fitted can pose specific
risks if these are carried out without precautions being taken.

Given that the organisation of emergency services is the responsibility of the Member States and that there
are huge variations between different makes of car, the Commission has always thought it preferable to
leave the Member States in charge of taking the appropriate measures. It is, however, prepared to examine
the whole issue, although it would like to have more detailed information on the practical problems which
seem to arise during actions to free accident victims.