WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: Community financial aid.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Galicia, humanitarian aid, oil pollution, support policy, tanker

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/165

Has the Commission since taken protective measures specifically relating to such products with a view to
protecting European consumers?

What steps has the Commission since taken in order,
Internet, at least to make it extremely difficult?

if not to completely stop illegal trade via the

Does the Commission intend to stop harmful products of this kind at the EU’s external borders and, where
necessary, what steps does it intend to take to that end?

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission was interested to read the conclusions of the study mentioned by the Honourable
Member. This study was carried out under the pilot measures financed by the Commission in 2000 and
2001 concerning the combating of doping in sport.

The conclusions of the study informed the Commission’s thoughts on the combating of doping. They were
used, among other things, to begin work on drawing up a Commission proposal for a Community anti-
doping programme focusing on information, education and prevention. In the end, this initiative had to be
suspended for budgetary reasons.

Since the publication of this study, there has been an important development, namely the adoption in
2002 of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (1).

The Commission raised the issue of special
labelling for doping products at the 53rd meeting of the
Community’s Pharmaceutical Committee on 14 May 2002. This meeting examined the experience of the
Member States in this area and the feasibility of an early warning system at European level. However, the
discussions in the Pharmaceutical Committee revealed the difficulties of implementing a system of this
kind, and the Commission currently has no plans to follow up this idea.

Finally, the Commission would point out to the Honourable Member that it has an obligation to act
strictly within the limits of its powers and that, in the combating of doping, a number of measures can
only be considered at national level.

(1) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0728/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: Community financial aid

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 11 reads:

Calls on the Commission, as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial
instruments to tackle the economic, social and environmental consequences of the wreck of the
‘Prestige’ and assist the economic sectors affected.

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

What percentage does the total Community aid granted represent of the total estimated amount of damage
and prejudice caused by the Prestige?

C 242 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

From the outset of the break up of the tanker Prestige on 19 November 2002, the Commission has been
actively engaged in the provision of assistance and in the adoption of measures to alleviate the damage
caused by its sinking.

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission Communication ‘Report to the European Council
on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster’ (1) adopted on 5 March 2003. This report gives a
comprehensive account of the Commission’s co-ordinated response to the Prestige accident.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

(2003/C 242 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: Solidarity Fund review

A Spanish newspaper (La Voz de Galicia’ of 19 January 2003, p. 7) has claimed that ‘in response to
requests from the Spanish Government, Prodi undertook to consider reviewing the use of the Solidarity
Fund in the case of the Prestige disaster, due to the problems detected in applying it efficiently on a scale
commensurate with that of the disaster’.

Can the Commission President confirm that the review of the Fund is being considered as a result of
problems detected in applying it to the oil spill from the Prestige?

If so, what does this ‘review’ of the use of the ‘Solidarity Fund’ consist of? What might the problems
detected be? Is the Commission going to submit a proposal amending the relevant Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In its Communication ‘Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige
disaster’ (1), the Commission states that it remains to be ascertained whether the Prestige disaster is eligible
for aid under the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) (2).

The Communication to the European Council concludes that aid of the volume required for the Prestige
would necessitate an amendment to the legal basis of the fund, which the Commission is willing to
propose to the Council. The amendment would adjust the mechanism in line with the Commission’s initial
proposal submitted in September 2002. It might include adjusting the Solidarity Fund to cover disasters of
a technological or environmental nature,
lowering the threshold for action (currently EUR 3 billion or
0,6 % of the gross national product (GNP) of the Member State concerned) and extending the eligible
actions defined in Article 3 of the Regulation to include preventative action intended to minimise the
damaging effects of an ongoing or imminent disaster.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European UnionSolidarity Fund (cid:1)

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.