WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/03 by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Alpine Convention.
Date: 2003-01-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Alpine Region, EU Member State, EU regional policy, economic and social cohesion, environmental protection, international convention, mountain region, ratification of an agreement

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/73

origin and destination of the shipment, the degrees of responsibility borne by the shipping company,
the captain of the vessel, the state in which the vessel was registered and the owner of the cargo, the
individuals involved in the shipment of the fuel oil, the crew’s working conditions, the quality of the
inspections carried out and the ports used, and to inform Parliament of the outcome as soon as
possible, and to check the application of the standards governing the internal market, including the
nature of the goods transported, and whether the fuel oil being transported was consistent with the
relevant European standards.

There is still great anxiety, concern and indignation about the issue, especially in Portugal, Spain and
France.

Can the Commission therefore say what stage has been in the inquiry? Are there any duly substantiated
preliminary findings? When will the conclusions be published?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2003)

The Commission has noted the Resolution adopted by Parliament on 21 November 2002. Although it
does not have formal powers to conduct an inquiry into the sinking of the ‘Prestige’, it is making every
effort to follow the work conducted by the various authorities responsible for this task, and to gather all
the information requested.

Under international law of the sea, this type of inquiry is the responsibility of the flag State concerned,
which informs the International Maritime Organisation of its findings. The coastal States concerned
normally also carry out their own inquiries into such accidents.

In this framework, the Commission is already in contact with authorities in the Bahamas, France and Spain
which have started inquiries into this disaster. It is also participating as an observer and at the request of
the American Bureau of Shipping (the classification society of the ‘Prestige’) in the ad hoc audit of this
company by the International Association of Classification Societies.

The Commission will therefore report on the initial findings of these inquiries to the Committee for
Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism in March 2003 with a view to the public hearing to be organised
by Parliament.

(2003/C 268 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/03

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Alpine Convention

It is encouraging that finally, after forty years of preparation, the Alpine Convention has now come into
force. It is, however, regrettable that two Member States, Italy and France, have so far failed to sign. The
European Union, which should also be among the signatories to the Convention, has also yet to sign the
Alpine Convention.

1. What problems stand in the way of the European Union’s signing the Convention?

2. What action is the Commission taking to encourage those Member States that have yet to sign to do
so?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

The Community signed the Alpine Convention on 7 November 1991 in Salzbourg (Austria).

The decision to ratify was taken on 26 February 1996 (1). The Community is therefore a Party to the
Alpine Convention.

C 268 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

All alpine Member States have ratified the Convention: Austria on 19 April 1994, Germany on 16 June
1994, France on 30 November 1995 and Italy on 28 September 1999. Slovenia, which is the only alpine
acceding country, ratified it on 22 March 1995.

In its reply to previous written questions (joint reply to E-1148/02, E-1149/02 and E-1229/02 (2) and reply
to E-1818/02 (3)), the Commission stated its practical difficulties in playing an active role in the activities
undertaken under the Convention and its Protocols, as well as its willingness to consider options to
increase its involvement.

Indeed, the Commission stresses the interest it attaches to mountain regions. This interest is exemplified by
the fact that the Commission, in its second Report on Cohesion, recognised that some mountain regions
suffer from severe development problems and should be a priority for the future of the Community’s
cohesion policy. Moreover, the Commission has just launched a study on mountain areas. The objectives
of this study are to define mountain areas (zoning), to set up a database including different kind of
indicators, in particular those linked to environment and hazards, and finally, to analyse the situation of
these regions in a sustainable development perspective. Other Community policies such as its rural
development and environment policy are also contributing to the sustainable development of mountain
regions including the Alpine region, and to the conservation of mountain eco-systems.

(1) Council decision No 96/191/EC of 26 February 1996 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on the

protection of the Alps, OJ L 61, 12.3.1996.

(2) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 91.
(3) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 140.

(2003/C 268 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0159/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2003)

Subject: Commission’s position on Article 13 of the EC Treaty

The European Convention is currently working on a constitutional Treaty for the European Union of the
future. Among other proposals,
it supports the incorporation into the EU Treaties of the Charter of
Fundamental Human Rights, as well as the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human
Rights (ECHR).

Both these texts on human rights proscribe discrimination based on language or on membership of a
national minority (Article 21, Charter of Fundamental Human Rights; Article 14, ECHR).

However, neither form of discrimination is mentioned in Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Consequently they
also go unmentioned in the Action Programme to combat discrimination.

The Commission:

(cid:1) Is it in favour of amending Article 13 of the EC Treaty to ensure that, rather than simply paying lip
service to the principle of comprehensive non-discrimination, this principle is given visible and
practical expression in the programmes of the EU?

(cid:1) Is it prepared to tackle the issue through its representatives in the Convention?

(cid:1) Will

it consider,

independently of the Convention’s discussions, the possibilities and alternatives
available as to how preventing and combating discrimination based on language or membership of a
national minority can be given due place in its initiatives?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

In the framework of the work of the Convention, the Commission supports the incorporation of the
general principle of non-discrimination into the future Constitution of the Union. It also supports the
inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the text of the Constitution, which would give
constitutional status to Article 21 of the Charter. It is the role of the Praesidium of the Convention to make