WRITTEN QUESTION E-3660/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Black tide in Galicia: statements by the Transport Commissioner.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Regulation, EU Member State, EU law - national law, European Commission, drafting of EU law, marine pollution, oil pollution, proposal (EU), tanker, technical regulations

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/65

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3597/02 and E-3598/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to parliamentary questions H-0848/
02 (1), E-3362/02 and E-3404/02 (2), E-3439/02 (3), E-3590/02 (4), E-3591/02 (5), E-3593/02 (6), E-3594/
02 (7), E-3599/02 (7)OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 111, E-3602/02, E-3603/02 and E-3604/02 (8), E-3655/02
and E-3656/02 (9) and P-0001/03 (10), which cover all aspects of the Prestige disaster, including the issues
of ‘compensation’ and ‘costs’ raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) Written answer given on 14.1.2003.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 85.
(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 90.
(4) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 91.
(5) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 92.
(6) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 110.
(7) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 111.
(8) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 124.
(9) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 123.
(10) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 166.

(2003/C 242 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/02

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

(13 December 2002)

Subject: State of implementation by the EU Member States of the ‘ERIKA’ legislative package

What is the state of play as regards implementation by the EU Member States of the ‘ERIKA’ legislative
package? Which were the Member States that, at a certain moment, blocked an agreement to bring
implementation forward? On what grounds did they justify such a position?

(2003/C 242 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3660/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Black tide in Galicia: statements by the Transport Commissioner

During the debate at Parliament’s plenary sitting of 21 November 2002, the Transport Commissioner
called the Member State governments an illogical bunch because they said at the Nice summit two years
ago that the implementation of the ERIKA I and II packages of legislation should be brought forward, and
then failed to apply them. The Commissioner stated that, if the governments had not delayed bringing the
measures proposed by the Commission into force, the Prestige accident would not have happened.

Can the Commission say which States opposed the adoption in the Council of Ministers of the proposals
and deadlines put forward by the Commission in the ERIKA I and ERIKA II packages of legislation?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3600/02 and E-3660/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

The Honourable Members are reminded how the Commission deplored the fact that the initially proposed
timetable for phasing out single-hull tankers was not retained. The proposal would have meant category 1
single-hull tankers such as the ERIKA or the Prestige being phased out at 23 years of age.

C 242 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Under the Regulation finally adopted by the co-legislators, the Prestige would have been phased out by
15 March 2005 at the latest. If the timetable proposed by the Commission had been retained, the Prestige
would have had to be decommissioned on 1 September 2002 (date of application of the final Regulation)
as it was 26 years old on the date of the accident.

In this context, the Commission welcomes the unanimous support of the Member States, as expressed in
the conclusions of both the Transport Council of 6 December 2002 and the European Council
in
Copenhagen, for the measures it presented in its Communication of 3 December 2002.

On 20 December 2002, the Commission presented a proposal for a Regulation (1) to Parliament and the
Council on the accelerated phase-out of single-hull tankers and return to the originally proposed timetable.
The Commission hopes that the proposal will be adopted during the Greek presidency.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 242 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3605/02

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE)
and Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: The euro and nickel allergy

The one and two euro coins contain a high level of nickel and the two-tone design consisting of two alloys
makes the coins galvanic elements which corrode heavily when they become electricity conductors on
contact with perspiration. This has proven to trigger allergic reactions in people who are allergic to nickel.

Bank employees, shop staff etc., who have a great deal of daily contact with the coins, are a particularly
vulnerable group who may run the risk of developing an allergy to nickel in the long term. Moreover,
anyone who is allergic to nickel may suffer a worsening condition.

What does the Commission intend to do to remedy the above complaints associated with the use of euro
coins? Has the Commission launched an investigation into the effects on health of the use of the current
euro coins? Does the Commission intend to withdraw the current coins and replace them with coins
which do not produce allergic reactions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2003)

The question of the Honourable Members refers to a study published in the magazine ‘Nature’
in
September 2002, where the release of nickel from euro coins in a galvanic environment was tested. The
conclusion drawn by the authors of this study is misleading, as the results were generated by sticking
EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins to the skin of patients with a known nickel allergy for 48-72 hours. After this
period they showed an allergic reaction. As these conditions clearly do not at all reflect the normal use of
the euro coins, the Commission does not see the need to revise its opinion, that the normal use of euro
coins does not represent any risk for European citizens. Even citizens who frequently touch coins (e.g.
bank employees and cashiers) are by far not exposed to the conditions simulated in the test, as a galvanic
environment of a coin could only be created by permanent contact with the human skin.

The introduction of the euro coins reduced the share of coins in circulation containing nickel from 75 % to
15 %. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy which
can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins. Neither is there evidence of a recent
increase in nickel allergies among European citizens.