WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/02 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Expulsion of oil tanker, the Enalios Titan, by French navy.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, environmental protection, law of the sea, maritime safety, maritime surveillance, tanker

C 161 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

This action stems from the intention of France, Spain and Portugal to ban single-hulled tankers from
entering their territorial waters.

However, the Moskovskiy Festival had passed a thorough inspection carried out on 30 October 2002 at
Santa Cruz in Tenerife, Spain !

Will the Commission therefore take measures against this unilateral decision by three Member States of the
European Union which constitutes a serious breach of and lack of respect for Community law?

(2003/C 161 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3667/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Expulsion of oil tanker, the ‘Enalios Titan’, by French navy

On Tuesday, 3 December 2002, the French navy expelled the single-hulled tanker, the Enalios Titan, flying
the Maltese flag, from the French 200-mile economic exclusion zone (EEZ). Before being expelled, the ship
was thoroughly inspected by the French authorities and was found to meet the required standards. In
addition, the ship also has the highest rating (condition assessment programme grade 1) awarded by Den
Norske Veritas, a member of the IACS, an organisation recognised by the IMO and the Commission.

Moreover, the ship’s captain was subjected to intimidation and threats from French naval personnel who
warned him that if he did not leave the French EEZ, the consequences would be ‘on his own responsibility
and at his own risk’, with all that that implies.

Since such action is unprecedented and in breach of Community law, what measures will the Commission
take to persuade the French authorities to put an end to their violation of Community legislation?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3666/02 and E-3667/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2003)

In its communication of 3 December 2002 (1), the Commission expressed its concern about ships that are
already avoiding European Union ports in order to evade inspections and are continuing to sail off our
coasts, including in the territorial waters and exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the Member States. The
Commission called on the Member States to take coordinated action and come up with solutions to
protect their coastal waters, particularly the territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, against
ships which are a threat to the marine environment.

The Member States must be able to defend their coast against the threat which could be posed by
manifestly sub-standard ships or ships which are a major risk to the environment. In this context, and as
stated in its communication of 3 December 2002, the Commission will take steps to have the International
Convention on the Law of the Sea re-examined.

During its meeting of 6 December 2002, the Transport Council unanimously approved these guidelines
and also confirmed its intention to ban single hull tankers transporting heavy fuel oil from European
Union ports.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/129

In this context, on 20 December 2002, the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a
regulatio (2) prohibiting the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers leaving or bound for
ports of the Union and to speed up the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the
Erika-I package.

The Commission has asked Parliament and the Council to examine this text as a matter of urgency with a
view to it being adopted at the Transport Council of 27 March 2003.

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

(2003/C 161 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3668/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Cause of the wreck of the ‘Prestige’

(18 December 2002)

According to a report in Lloyd’s List of 25 November 2002, on the same day as the tanker the Prestige
foundered, another ship in the same area had spilled its cargo of 200 17-metre long logs into the sea.

According to Lloyd’s List, given the heavy seas that day, it is possible that the Prestige was hit by one or
more logs, creating a hole in the ship’s hull which caused it to founder.

Has the Commission examined the possibility that a previous shipwreck was also the cause of the wreck of
the Prestige with all that that entails?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

On 13 November 2002, in the middle of a storm, the tanker ‘Prestige’, en route from Latvia to Singapore,
requested emergency assistance after a large breach opened in its starboard hull. The crew later reported
that the ship had started listing after what they described as a loud noise was heard, as if the tanker had hit
a floating object.

Though aware of the article the Honourable Member is referring to, the Commission would stress that it is
not for it to determine what caused the loss of the Prestige. That is a task for the competent authorities of
the States concerned by the disaster.

The Commission is nonetheless following the investigation into the causes of the disaster very closely.
Accordingly, it is involved as an observer in the ad hoc audit of the American Bureau of Shipping (the
Prestige’s classification society) being conducted by the International Association of Classification Societies.
It is also in contact with the national authorities which have opened enquiries: the Bahamas, Spain and
France.

With a view to the hearing which Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism
intends to hold during March 2003, the Commission will send Parliament an interim report on the
information it has on the accident.

(2003/C 161 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3669/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Tanker accident

Last month, a tanker belonging to a well-known Norwegian company was involved in an accident when it
was struck by the periscope of a US nuclear submarine (the ‘Oklahoma City’) causing serious material
damage which necessitated repairs. I would recall that a similar accident also occurred last year on the high
seas off Hawaii, again caused by a US submarine, resulting in the loss of nine sailors’ lives.