WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council. Prestige: stronger legal classification of environmental crime and maritime pollution.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, environmental law, environmental liability, environmental offence, environmental protection, marine pollution, penalty, pollution from ships

C 51 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

(2004/C 51 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0715/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(11 March 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: stronger legal classification of environmental crime and maritime pollution

The ‘Prestige’ disaster calls for a forthright response in order to prevent further such disasters. Various
organisations are therefore calling for much stronger criminal classification of environmental crime and
maritime pollution.

The Spanish press (La Voz de Galicia of 4 February 2003, p. 6) has reported a meeting of the Spanish,
Italian and French Ministers of Justice in which ‘they agreed to support the EU Council’s initiatives and step
up the criminal prosecution of those involved in polluting European coasts’.

What measures is the Council debating or going to take in this connection?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

(Transport, Telecommunications,
In response to the accident of the oil tanker ‘Prestige’, the Council
Energy) adopted on 6 December 2002 Council conclusions on ships’ safety and pollution prevention. On
that occasion,
the Council, referring to the Commission Communication of 3 December 2002 on
improving safety at sea in response to the ‘Prestige’ accident, welcomed the intention of the Commission to
present a proposal to ensure that any person who has caused or contributed to a pollution incident
through grossly negligent behaviour should be subject to appropriate sanctions. The European Council
held in Copenhagen on 12/13 December 2002 also welcomed the Commission’s intention of examining
the need for further specific measures, among them measures relating to liability and corresponding
sanctions, to confront the consequences deriving from the wreck of the ‘Prestige’. The Council recently
received a Commission proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on ship-
source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for pollution offences.
Furthermore, on 27 January 2003 the Council adopted a Framework Decision on the protection of the
environment through criminal
law. The Framework Decision makes provision for Member States to
establish wide-ranging jurisdiction with respect to environmental offences in such a way as to avoid
physical or legal persons escaping prosecution by the simple fact that the offence was not committed in
their territory.

In the proposal for a Directive which it submitted to the Council in March, the Commission refers to two
main objectives:

(cid:1) to incorporate into Community legislation the international discharge rules on ship-source pollution

and regulate the enforcement of those rules in detail;

(cid:1) to establish that violations of the discharge rules are criminal offences and provide guidelines on the

penalties to be awarded.

Following the Commission’s oral presentation of
(Telecommunications,
Transport and Energy) on 27 March 2003, the Council has now begun a technical examination of the
proposal, thereby responding to the call from the European Council held in Brussels on 20/21 March
2003 to adopt before the end of 2003 a system of sanctions, including criminal sanctions for pollution
offences on the appropriate legal basis. Furthermore, the Commission recently presented a proposal for a
Council Framework Decision to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law
against ship-source pollution.

the proposal to the Council

The Honourable Member can therefore be assured that the sinking of the single-hull oil tanker ‘Prestige’ off
the coast of Galicia on 19 November 2002 engaged European institutions in a combined effort to combat
the consequences of the massive pollution caused by such a terrible accident.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/45

Furthermore, at its meeting on 4 March 2003 and taking into account reports by the Commission, Spain
and France, the Environment Council adopted conclusions on a thematic strategy to protect and conserve
the marine environment and,
if
necessary, in relation to the safety of maritime transport in order to protect the marine environment and
consider related issues of liability and, if appropriate, sanctions’.

it invited the Commission ‘to include further measures,

in particular,

(2004/C 51 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0738/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Transfer of the unsecured risks of German banks and insurance companies to a government

funded entity

It

is the Commission aware of

1.
in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung of
23 February 2003 that the Commerzbank, the Dresdner Bank and the Hypo-Vereinsbank are to transfer an
amount of at least EUR 7 billion in risky loans to a ‘bad bank’ to be financed by the German Government
and/or the Bundesbank?

the report

2.
Are there arrangements in other EU Member States whereby banks’ and insurance companies’ risks
and losses are taken over by the government or by publicly funded bodies, while the profitable sections of
the loan portfolios continue to benefit the companies themselves?

3.
In view of the fact that since 1 January 2002 the Bundesbank has no longer been responsible for the
circulation of German currency and is integrated into the EMU system, what are the implications for the
value of the euro? Does this mean that an arrangement like that described in paragraph 1 is partly funded
at the expense of collective and individual spending capacity for the inhabitants of the 12 states of the
euro zone as a whole?

Does the Commission plan to extend the scope of such arrangements to all the Member States or

4.
does it wish to restrict and discourage them because they are seen as a form of illegal State aid?

Source: Netherlands newspaper, De Volkskrant, 23 February 2003.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2003)

1.
The Commission is aware of press articles indicating that certain German banks have called for the
creation of a ‘bad bank’ which would take over bad loans. In reply to an information request of the
Commission the German authorities stated that no such plans were being pursued.

The Commission is not aware of any general schemes in a given Member State applicable to the
2.
whole banking or insurance sector to hive off bad assets.
individual rescue and
restructuring operations a transfer of bad assets has been allowed in some specific cases (e.g. Crédit
Lyonnais).

In the context of

3.
The cost of such a scheme, if it were to be implemented, would in the first place be met by the
national tax payers. However, as already stated, the German government is not planning to implement
such a scheme.

4.
If such a scheme is implemented it may meet the criteria to be considered a State aid in the sense of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In principle State aids are prohibited, though this prohibition is not
absolute. Articles 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty set out the conditions under which certain State aids may
In particular, pursuant to Article 87(3)(c), the
be considered compatible with the common market.