WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/03 by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission. Enforcement of Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues.
Date: 2003-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, harbour installation, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, pollution from ships, prevention of pollution, waste management

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/125

to prevent a ‘breach of public morality’ which could justify a restriction of trade in the form of a
Commission Directive?

(1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998, p. 23.
(3) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 104.
(4) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 232.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0373/03 and E-1145/03
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2003)

The Commission does not ignore the issue of imports of cat and dog furs. The Commission is currently
examining the questions raised taking into consideration the respective requirements of World Trade
Organisation (WTO) law, legal bases under Community law and the interplay with existing legislation to
prevent consumer deception.

(2003/C 242 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0381/03

by Wilhelm Piecyk (PSE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Enforcement of Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues

The European Parliament and Council Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and
cargo residues came into force with its publication in the Official Journal on 28 December 2000. The aim
of this Directive is to reduce sea pollution caused by ship-generated waste and cargo residues through the
development of availability and use of reception facilities throughout the Community.

In Article 16 of the Directive, Member States were given a period of two years in which to bring into force
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement the Directive. This period came
to an end on 28 December 2002.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1.

In which Member States of the Community have the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
already been brought into force and adequate port reception facilities provided?

2. What action has the Commission taken, or will the Commission take, to ensure that the Directive is

incorporated into the national law of all Member States as swiftly as possible?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

On the deadline for transposition, the Directive had been transposed into German and Greek law.
The Commission therefore sent a letter of formal notice to all the other Member States, in accordance with
Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

By 26 February 2003, the Commission had been informed that Denmark, Spain and Luxembourg had also
transposed Directive 2000/59/EC (1).

C 242 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

On the basis of this information, the Commission is planning to initiate infringement proceedings against
Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom
for failure to notify national implementing measures.

(1) Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception

facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (cid:1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(2003/C 242 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0382/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental pollution caused by a factory in the Larissa area

In the Larissa area (6 kilometres along the regional road linking Larissa and Sykourio) there is a brick and
tile factory, Terra Ltd (cid:1) Viokeral, which uses the fuel Pet Coke without any sulphur dioxide filters. This
fuel has been found to have serious consequences for the environment because of the increased sulphur
content and sulphur dioxide emissions which are over the permitted limits.

Does the Commission consider that this constitutes a violation of Directive 96/61/EC (1)? If so, how does it
intend to intervene so as to prevail upon Greece to comply with this Directive and put an end to the
pollutant emissions of sulphur dioxide from the factory in question and any other similar emissions by
other factories on Greek territory?

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2003)

On the basis of the situation reported by the Honourable Member, the Commission has launched an own-
initiative investigation to determine whether the factory in question complies with the Community’s
environment legislation.

A letter has been sent to the Greek authorities asking them for information on compliance with Council
Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control and
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

Once it has received a reply from the Greek authorities, the Commission will examine whether there is any
violation of
take the necessary steps to ensure that
Community law is observed in this instance.

the aforementioned Community acts and will

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 242 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/03

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2003)

Subject: Appointment of Morten Jung-Olsen as Head of Unit and Chief Negotiator for Bulgaria

Is it true that the Commissioner for Enlargement, Günter Verheugen, has appointed Morten Jung-

1.
Olsen Head of Unit and Chief Negotiator for Bulgaria?

Is there any truth in the allegations that Mr Olsen was held in custody in Denmark over alleged

2.
activities for the State Security Service of the former GDR?