WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige Solidarity Fund.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Spain, fishing industry, indemnification, oil pollution

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/43

Due to the complexity of the dossier and the need to respect the obligations that stem from the
international agreements signed by the Union (Article 37,4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of
28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables), the Commission has
carried out consultations with the Turkish authorities, and a series of contacts with different Community
operators in the hazelnut sector.

On the basis of the information provided until now by the Spanish authorities, the statistical data currently
available, and taking into account the results of the consultations previously mentioned, the Commission
has elaborated an exhaustive file on the subject. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that, following the
examination of this file, it may be deemed necessary to request additional information from the Spanish
authorities.

Following the completion of this assessment, the Commission will decide whether measures need to be
taken on the matter at issue to avoid the objectives of Article 33 of the EC Treaty being put at risk.

(2004/C 65 E/042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0726/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’ Solidarity Fund

On 21 November 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the ‘Prestige’ disaster off the
coast of Galicia. Paragraph 8 reads:

Calls for fisheries workers and other local and regional businesses affected by the disaster to be fully
and swiftly compensated for the economic losses they will suffer; calls, further, for assistance to be
provided under other appropriate instruments (Solidarity Fund, Structural Funds) with a view to
assisting the people and economic sectors affected by the oil pollution and restoring the environment
of the regions concerned.

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 12 reads:

Calls for the immediate adoption of measures to alleviate the damage occasioned to those affected,
through the use of the Solidarity Fund.

What sums from the Solidarity Fund have been allocated to alleviating the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster?

What percentage of the total estimated damage and prejudice does this sum represent?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

In January 2003, the Commission received an application from the Spanish authorities to mobilise the
European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) with respect to the disaster resulting from the ‘Prestige’ tanker
accident and subsequent oil spill affecting the Galician coast.

The Commission has examined the request on the basis of
the requirements imposed by Council
Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund (1),
hereafter the EUSF-Regulation. The Commission has established that the disaster, based on the information
provided by the Spanish authorities, does not qualify as a ‘major disaster’ within the meaning of the
Regulation, because the damage caused does not meet the threshold of EUR 3 billion or 0,6 % of gross
national income (GNI).

The EUSF-Regulation, however, provides that under exceptional circumstances a region could benefit from
assistance from the Fund, where that region has been affected by an extraordinary disaster affecting the
major part of the population with serious and lasting repercussions on living conditions and the economic
stability of the region. The EUSF may intervene only exceptionally if it is demonstrated that the criteria of
Article 2(2) of the EUSF-Regulation are complied with, and furthermore,
it obliges the Commission to
examine with utmost rigour any requests, which are submitted under this subparagraph.

C 65 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

The Commission can confirm that it is now examining the Spanish request and in order to carry out a
proper assessment, it has requested supplementary information from the Spanish authorities, in accordance
with the requirements of the EUSF-Regulation.

It is only after this assessment that the Commission may decide to propose the mobilisation of the
Solidarity Fund to the Budgetary Authority.

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2004/C 65 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0756/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Liberalising the electricity sector in the Illes Balears

In Question E-2260/00 (1) raised a problem facing liberalising electricity prices in the Illes Balears, namely
that such liberalisation might not have the desired effects in terms of cutting prices, since isolated regions
(cid:1) due to their geographical situation (cid:1) mean that a fully liberalised market is unfeasible. Full liberalisation
of isolated systems may even produce negative effects, such as price increases stemming from monopolistic
or oligopolistic behaviour on the part of the naturally limited number of market players operating in such
supply systems.

The Commission’s solution was that, should the Spanish Government consider inappropriate to liberalise
such small isolated systems, ‘it has the possibility to refer to Article 24(3) of the Directive 96/92 EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in
electricity’ (2) and apply for a derogation from the main provisions of the Directive whilst at the same time
ensuring appropriate price levels for final consumers through effective regulation of the market.

The Commission further stated that it was fully aware of the specific situation of islands in connection
with energy supply, and was currently analysing the situation and considering possible solutions and
measures, in particular with regard to the promotion of renewable sources of energy, which usually have a
particularly large potential for expansion on islands which are not connected to national networks.

Has the Commission concluded its examination of the case in question? Has it decided to take any steps to
deal with these specific situations?

Does the Commission know whether the Spanish Government or the government of any other Member
State has made use of Article 24(3) of Directive 96/92 EC to apply for a derogation from the main
provisions of the directive?

Now that this directive is being amended under the co-decision procedure, and Parliament is calling for
Article 24 to be deleted in its entirety, does the Commission have plans for any measure which will
encourage full liberalisation of small, isolated supply networks, as in the Balearic Islands, which would
continue to be subject to derogation, although without the possibility of referring to the Directive?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 170.
(2) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

The Commission is active in promoting the use of renewable energies in islands, including the Balearic
Islands, by way of
(RTD) Framework
the Community’s Research and Technological Development
Programmes and the Altener programme. The latter programme is specifically devoted to the promotion
of renewable energies and will continue as part of the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme once
adopted.