WRITTEN QUESTION E-3666/02 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Accident involving the tanker Moskovskiy Festival.
Date: 2002-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, application of EU law, environmental protection, law of the sea, maritime safety, maritime surveillance, tanker

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/127

stipulated that WHO work and programmes deemed to be related to the IAEA’s sphere of activities would
be subject to the control and approval of the latter organisation and that the procedures for and conduct
of such work and programmes would be subject to a negotiated consensus (Article 1(3)).

The same article set out the explicit and partisan aims of the IAEA, stating that its main responsibility is to
encourage, assist and coordinate around the world research into, and the development and practical use of,
atomic energy for peaceful purposes. In the WHO Constitution which was ratified in July 1946 and which
entered into force on 7 April 1947, in accordance with the United Nations Charter the contracting parties
adopted the following principle as basic to the security of all peoples:
‘Informed opinion and active
cooperation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of
the people. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples’. In the report which it
submitted to the WHO in 1958, the study group on the mental health issues raised by the use of atomic
energy stated that the most satisfactory solution for the future peaceful use of atomic energy would be for
a new generation that had learned to accept ignorance and uncertainty as a fact of life to emerge.

Is the Commission not concerned at this flagrant collusion between two international institutions, with
WHO reports being subjected to censure by the IAEA, which is intrinsically pro-nuclear?

Is it not alarmed at the implications which the compromises clearly made by the WHO have for the
objectivity and accuracy of EU studies carried out in preparation for its programmes and action in the field
of nuclear energy and related diseases (brought about by the use of depleted uranium in Iraq and the FYR
or the effects of Chernobyl in Eastern Europe)?

Given this affront to the transparency and independence of the WHO, which is borne out by the fact that
it took ten years to organise on its own a conference on the Chernobyl disaster and then failed to publish
the report of the proceedings, should the Commission not denounce the collusion brought about by some
provisions of the agreement?

Will the Commission undertake, within the framework of its bilateral dialogue with these two international
institutions, to demand the amendment of WHA Agreement 12-40 (Article 1(3), under which each party is
to provide the other with information), as provided for in Article 13 thereof?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health
Organisation (WHO) follows the model of agreements concluded between the WHO and the United
Nations or other international organisations. Such agreements establish a general framework to enable the
parties to shape and develop their cooperation according to their programmes and priorities, and do not
contain detailed obligations. It is customary, for example, for organisations to agree to consult on matters
of joint interest or on which either party may have a substantial interest. However, as Article 1 of the
Agreement makes clear, such commitment does not in any way imply a submission of one organisation to
the authority of the other so as to affect their independence and responsibilities under their respective
constitutional mandates.

According to Statement WHO/06 of 23 February 2001 on ‘Interpretation of
the World Health
Organisation’s Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency’, the 1959 Agreement between
the IAEA and the WHO does not affect the impartial and independent exercise by WHO of its statutory
responsibilities; nor does it place WHO in a situation of subordination to IAEA.

(2003/C 161 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3666/02

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Accident involving the tanker ‘Moskovskiy Festival’

(18 December 2002)

During the last weekend in November, the single-hulled tanker the Moskovskiy Festival, built in 1985 and
flying the Maltese flag, was intercepted by Spanish and Portuguese warships as it was passing Gibraltar and
escorted out of the 200 nautical mile exclusion zone.

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.