WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: intensifying Port State Control.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental cooperation, maritime safety, oil pollution, pollution control measures, prevention of pollution, tanker

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/27

(2004/C 58 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0727/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: intensifying Port State Control

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster. Paragraph 15 reads:

Stresses the importance of intensifying Port State Control; urges all Member States to meet the 25 %
target of Port State Control inspections as required by Directive 95/21/EC (1); urges the Commission to
pursue Member States who continue to fall short of this target; considers that, in the light of the
‘Prestige’ disaster, it will be necessary substantially to increase the rate and quality of inspections, with
a particular targeting of ships above a certain age, of high-risk types of ships, and those ships flying
flags of convenience as defined by the Paris Memorandum of Understanding;

What measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in response?

(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0718/03,
E-0720/03, E-0722/03, E-0723/03 and E-0727/03
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

With regard to the measures taken following the wreck of the oil tanker ‘Prestige’
the
Commission would invite the Honourable Member to refer to the report it presented for the hearing by
Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on 19 March 2003, and its annex:
‘Communication from the Commission to the Parliament and to the Council on improving safety at sea in
response to the “Prestige” accident’ (1), adopted on 5 March 2003.

in general,

As regards taking action in the context of the IMO (International Maritime Organisation), the Commission
would remind the Honourable Member that
that organisation.
Accordingly, its work consists in encouraging and coordinating action taken by the Member States in the
framework of that international body.

is not, at present, a member of

it

This is the approach the Commission has adopted with regard to identifying Particularly Sensitive Sea
Areas and reorganising maritime traffic, as it already indicated to the Honourable Member in its answer to
Written Question E-3657/02 (2) on moving the Finisterre corridor further away from the coast.

At international
level, the Commission, within the framework of the Agreements linking them to the
Union, has asked the EU’s neighbouring States, in particular Russia and the Mediterranean Partners, to
adopt measures equivalent to those the EU is taking to ban the transport of heavy fuel oil and speed up
the process of phasing out single-hull tankers.

With regard to strengthening port State control, the Commission would remind the Honourable Member
that in its Communication of 3 December 2002 (3) it asked the Member States to take the necessary
measures to apply the existing Directive and anticipate the implementation of the Directive as revised
following the wreck of the ‘Erika’ (4).

In particular, the Commission stressed the need to recruit a sufficient number of inspectors to check at
least 25 % of vessels, as required under current European rules. It also called on Member States to ensure a
sufficient inspection rate at all ports and anchorage areas to avoid the emergence of ‘ports of convenience’.

C 58 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Commission intends to remain particularly vigilant on this point, and has thus taken France and
Ireland to the Court of Justice for failure to attain the 25 % inspection threshold.

The Commission considers that, in the light of recent events, there is a legitimate argument for creating a
European Coastguard Service as a means of effectively countering the risks of pollution and ensuring
maritime safety.

The first task of the European Maritime Safety Agency, created under Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 (5) of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 and due to become operational in the next
few months, will be technical coordination of the enforcement of Community law. The aim is for the
Agency’s mandate gradually to be extended.

In particular, the organisation will have a major role to play in stepping up cooperation between the
Member States’ coastguard authorities with regard to maritime safety and prevention of pollution.
The question of whether a next stage should be the creation of a European coastguard fleet will need to be
examined in the light of the experience gained by the Agency, and considered by all the parties concerned.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.
(2) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 127.
(3) COM(2002) 681 final.
(4) Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community
ports and sailing in the waters under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship
safety, pollution prevention and shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 157, 7.7.1995.

(5) OJ L 208, 5.8.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0788/03

by Yvonne Sandberg-Fries (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject: Investment aid creates unemployment

In February 1996 the EU approved Spanish state aid of close on SEK 57 million (approximately
EUR 6 million) for ‘Outokumpu Kopper’ which was intended for ‘restructuring of the company’. The aid
was conditional on a reduction in production capacity and the creation of 60 new jobs in Spain.

The result of this state aid being approved was that the company chose to shut down its operations at the
Granefors works at Blekinge in southern Sweden in 1998 with the loss of 145 jobs.

This is yet another example of how far public subsidies can fall wide of the mark. An earlier example of a
company in Sweden being forced to shut down operations on account of state aid being approved
elsewhere in the EU is the German tyre manufacturer Continental’s factory in Gislaved.

EU regional aid seeks to even out social inequalities between Member States. Regional aid does not allow
tax subsidies to individual companies in order to attract manufacturing activity from another country and,
yet, this is what is happening.

Does the Commission believe it is right to use EU structural aid in this way? What is it doing to ensure
that there is no repetition of state aid being granted that results in company relocations with the above
consequences?