WRITTEN QUESTION E-0061/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Visit to Galicia by the President-in-Office of the Council in order to assess at first hand the effects of the Prestige disaster.
Date: 2003-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Galicia, Presidency of the Council of the EU, aid to disaster victims, coastal pollution, indemnification, oil pollution

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

C 222 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

context of the Prestige (5). The Council also adopted, on 20 December 2002, a Regulation instituting
specific measures to compensate the Spanish fisheries, shellfish industry and aquaculture, affected by the
oil spills from the Prestige (6). For its part, the European Council of Copenhagen of December 2002 also
expressed its grave concerns (7).

The Council is at present working towards adopting, at its meeting (Environment) on 4 March 2003,
conclusions that will react to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament ‘Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment’ (8). This communication
was already discussed at length at the Stakeholders Conference organized by the Presidency and the
Commission in Køge (Denmark), on 4-6 December 2002 (9).

(1) Doc 14945/02 MAR 147 ENV 719.
(2) Doc 15301/02 MAR 153 ENV 747.
(3) Doc 15626/02 MAR 159 ENV 767.
(4) Doc 15477/02 ENV 757 MAR 157.
(5) See 15691/02 PRESSE 404.
(6) Doc 15836/02 PECHE 257 and 15837/02 PECHE 258.
(7) SN 400/02, Nos 32-34.
(8) Doc 12815/02 ENV 554 MAR 124 PECHE 149.
(9) Doc 1555/02 ENV 764 MAR 158.

(2003/C 222 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0066/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

Subject: Fisheries conflicts between Spain and Portugal

(23 January 2003)

A few days ago, for the second time in recent months, a conflictive incident occurred involving the
Spanish and Portuguese fishing fleets. A Portuguese patrol boat shot at a group of Andalusian fishermen
who had crossed the border of the Spanish territorial waters and were fishing in Portuguese waters.

Is the Council aware of this circumstance?

Does the Council believe it reasonable that a mere breach of the rules by Spanish fishermen should meet
with such a response, which could be considered an act of war?

Does the Council find it acceptable that incidents like this should occur between two Member States?

Does the Council intend to take any action to deal with the problems raised by conflictive incidents of this
nature?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is aware, the Council adopted on 20 December 2002 Regulation (EC)
No 2371/2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP), wish contains a new set of rules on control and enforcement. Those rules stipulate
that Member States shall control activities carried out within the scope of the CFP on their territory or
waters subject to their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

The Council
Portuguese Navy vessel.

is not aware the incident which occurred recently involving Spanish fishermen and a

The application of Community and national law is not subject to review by the Council.