WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Port checks on the Prestige.
Date: 2002-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, Gibraltar, Spain, interinstitutional relations (EU), maritime safety, oil pollution, port administration, public statement, tanker

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/125

(2003/C 192 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3604/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 2002)

Subject: Port checks on the ‘Prestige’

In her statements made to Parliament on 21 November 2002, Commissioner de Palacio several times
strongly criticised the failure to carry out checks on the ‘Prestige’ during its refuelling operations off the
port of Gibraltar.

However, according to press reports (see ‘Libération’ of 19 November 2002), the last port at which the
vessel carried out refuelling operations before the accident was not Gibraltar, but a port located in
northern Spain.

Can the Commission explain why it has placed so much emphasis on Gibraltar’s responsibilities rather
than Spain’s?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3602/02, E-3603/02 and E-3604/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

As its title indicates, the Commission’s press release of 14 November 2002 ‘After the Erika disaster, the
European Union is at the forefront of maritime safety’ was intended as a stock-taking of Commission
action three years on from the loss of the Erika.

The text does not, therefore, concern the Prestige or its consequences. On that date the ship was only
damaged; it did not sink until 19 November 2002.

These dates notwithstanding, the Commission would point out that the pollution-response alert system
referred to in its communication ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (1)
functioned satisfactorily.

The pollution-response assistance arrangements agreed between the Commission and the national
structures responsible for handling this type of disaster ensured immediate access to the resources
available around the Community. Accordingly, the French, Spanish and Portuguese authorities were able to
including vessels and other special pollution-response
make rapid use of
equipment.

the available assistance,

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that following the loss of the Erika it produced,
and enabled the co-legislators to adopt, an unprecedented series of maritime safety measures. In so doing,
it demonstrated its determination to act.

As part of the Erika II package, the Commission did indeed propose the creation of a fund for the
compensation of oil pollution damage (the COPE fund), with a global ceiling of EUR 1 billion,
to
supplement the compensation of victims by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (IOPCF)
where the current ceilings of 200 million euros are exceeded.

This Commission proposal was not adopted, as the Member States thought it preferable to act at
international rather than Community level. A draft protocol to the IOPCF Convention, modelled on the
COPE proposal, has therefore been drawn up and is due to be examined shortly by the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO). In its communication of 3 December 2002 (2), the Commission reiterated its
support for this draft provided it results in the same level of compensation for victims as the draft COPE
fund.

Like all the measures presented by the Commission, this initiative has received general backing. Thus on
21 November and 19 December 2002, Parliament, following the Commission’s move, adopted resolutions
calling on the Union to take immediate steps to tackle pollution and improve maritime safety. Similarly, at
its meeting on 6 December 2002 the Transport Council supported the proposals the Commission put
the Copenhagen European Council of
forward in its communication of 3 December 2002. Lastly,

C 192 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

12/13 December 2002 recognised the Commission’s diligence and welcomed the action it had taken to
deal with the consequences of the accident.

Regarding the inspections carried out on the Prestige in the framework of port State control, the
Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Prestige had sailed not from a port in
northern Spain but from Russia and Latvia, and was heading for Singapore.

The ship’s last port State inspection was in September 1999 in Rotterdam. After this it entered several
ports belonging to EU Member States or Paris Memorandum countries, including Gibraltar.

In this respect, the Commission, acting within its jurisdiction, has written to the authorities of various
States for information on why inspections were not carried out during the ship’s recent calls into ports
under their jurisdiction.

(1) COM(2002) 539 final.
(2) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 192 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3642/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Detention of Mr Apostolos Mangouras

(10 December 2002)

Mr Apostolos Mangouras, the captain of the tanker the Prestige, has been held in custody in a Spanish
prison for the past ten days. According to press reports, he has not been officially charged other than
being accused of not following orders, though there has been no clarification of what those orders were or
who gave them.

Moreover, the Spanish authorities are not allowing Mr Mangouras to receive a visit from representatives of
the Bahamas (the flag country) who are there to take his testimony.

Will the Commission make representations to the Spanish Government to allow the captain of the Prestige
to enjoy the democratic rights of which he is at present deprived?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The detention of Mr Apostolos Mangouras by the Spanish authorities must be considered as a question
internal security. Pursuant to
law and order and the safeguarding of
regarding the maintenance of
Article 33 of the Treaty on the European Union, it is the Member States, which are responsible for what
action should be taken to maintain law and order and to safeguard their internal security. The Commission
has therefore no competence to intervene in individual cases that are dealt with by the competent
authorities of the Member States.

(2003/C 192 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3653/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Black tide in Galicia: restrictions on single-hull vessels

(18 December 2002)

Following the Prestige accident, the Governments of Spain and France agreed to expel single-hull oil
tankers more than 15 years old from the zone between 12 and 200 miles, i.e. to keep them out of their
territorial waters, even if they complied with International Maritime Organisation standards.