WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Political conflict between the Commission and the Council as regards political and legislative measures relating to the transport by sea of oil-based and hazardous products.
Date: 2003-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, International Maritime Organisation, common transport policy, interinstitutional relations (EU), maritime safety, maritime transport, transport of dangerous goods

C 222 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

consequently presented to the Council and to the Parliament a proposal (3), which included an explicit
reference to the phasing out of tobacco subsidies. Both the Parliament and the Council were opposed to
the inclusion of such reference in the text.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 264 final.
(3) Proposal for a Council Regulation fixing the premiums and guarantee thresholds for leaf tobacco by variety group
and Member State for the 2002, 2003 and 2004 harvests and amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92,
COM(2001) 684 final.

(2003/C 222 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0053/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Political conflict between the Commission and the Council as regards political and legislative

measures relating to the transport by sea of oil-based and hazardous products

In the wake of the Copenhagen European Council it is clear that a serious political conflict exists between
the Commission and the Council as regards political and legislative measures relating to the transport by
sea of oil-based products and other hazardous cargoes. According to its Communication on safety at sea
following the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige,
the Commission is intending to apply the ERIKA
legislation, even returning to the original texts which laid down much stricter rules designed to bring
safety to Community waters, strengthening the package which has already been approved by Parliament
and the Council, and heeding calls from the College of Commissioners for specific EU legislation similar to
that drawn up by the USA following the Exxon Valdez accident which occurred in Alaska in 1989. The
Council, on the other hand (as demonstrated by the Transport Council agreements concluded before the
Copenhagen European Council and ratified at Copenhagen), rejects such views and wishes EU legislation to
continue to reflect what is laid down by the IMO, a body which certain countries with interests in the
maritime sector find a more suitable forum for protecting the existing status quo, which enables oil
companies and the tangled mass of international transport groups and mafias to hold sway. This status
quo is extraordinarily damaging to the coastal countries of Europe whose nature and economy are
threatened with destruction, as the Prestige disaster off the coast of Galicia has recently demonstrated.

What action is the Commission going to take in order to resolve this political conflict? How is it going to
settle the obvious differences which exist between it and the Council? What support will it seek from the
European Parliament for the purpose of resolving this conflict through the drawing up of legislation (quite
apart from the primitive, ineffective and confused International Maritime Organisation rules) which will
ensure that the seas are safe? What action has the Commission President, Mr Prodi, taken with a view to
resolving this serious issue?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

On 3 December 2002 (1), following the sinking of the oil tanker Prestige, the Commission adopted a
communication setting out a series of new legislative measures and Community initiatives in the field of
maritime safety.

At the meeting of the Transport Council held on 6 December 2002, the Council,
in its conclusions,
broadly supported the Commission initiatives, some of which it sought to reinforce. These initiatives also
met with a favourable reception at the Copenhagen European Summit held on 13 December 2002.

The abovementioned communication provides, on the one hand, for the speeding-up of the entry into
force of the legislative measures adopted after the sinking of the ERIKA and, on the other, for the
launching of initiatives the implementation of which will need to transcend the boundaries of the 15
Member States of the European Union, thereby necessitating a debate within the International Maritime

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/145

Organisation (IMO). Cooperation between the Commission and the IMO is a constant feature of the
regulatory initiatives taken by the Union in the maritime sector with regular parliamentary involvement.

Accordingly, the Commission welcomes the support of Parliament and of the Council on this dossier and
hopes that the cooperation between these two institutions will
lead swiftly to the realisation of the
measures envisaged.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.

(2003/C 222 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0059/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Following the Prestige disaster off

the coast of Galicia: adoption of specific EU legislation

governing the transport of hazardous cargoes by sea

What reasons has the Council for not promoting the adoption of specific EU legislation governing the
transport of hazardous cargoes through its coastal waters, as the USA did (in the form of the 1990 Oil
Pollution Act) following the Exxon Valdez accident, thereby creating a legal area separate from the existing
basic and rather confused international laws?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to refer to the reply it gave to this same question in Council
question time during the plenary session of the European Parliament in January 2003 (QH (cid:1) 0847/02).

(2003/C 222 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/03

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

(22 January 2003)

Subject: Visit to Galicia by the President-in-Office of the Council in order to assess at first hand the effects

of the Prestige disaster

Is the President-in-Office of the Council thinking of immediately visiting Galicia and the other affected
areas in order to experience at first hand the effects of the accident involving the Prestige and so as to
ensure that the Council can no longer ignore the disaster?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council devoted a large part of its time to discussing the Prestige affair at its meetings on Fisheries on
28 November 2002, on Transport on 5/6 December 2002 and on Environment on 9 December 2002.
The Council was on this occasion extensively briefed about the details of the accident by the Spanish (1),
French and Portuguese Ministers and by the Commission, in particular Mrs Wallström who has visited the
spot. The Council also availed itself of
the Commission communication of 4 December 2002 on
improving safety at sea in response to the Prestige accident (2).

As a result, the Council ‘Transport’ adopted, on 5-6 December 2002, conclusions on Ship’s safety and
pollution prevention (3). The Council ‘Environment’ adopted, on 9 December 2002, conclusions on the
environmental disaster caused by the accident of the ‘Prestige’ (4). The ‘Justice and Home Affairs’ Council of
19 December 2002 adopted a statement on the Protection of the Environment through criminal law in the