WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Application of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the Prestige disaster in Galicia and the other regions affected.
Date: 2003-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Galicia, fund (EU), man-made disaster, oil pollution, tanker

C 11 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

(2004/C 11 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1261/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Failure to consider the responsibility of the Spanish State authorities in the communication from

the Commission to the Council of 5 March 2003

In the communication from the Commission to the Council of 5 March 2003 (1) on action to deal with the
effects of the Prestige disaster, under the heading ‘a far-reaching cross-border catastrophe’, no reference is
made to the decisions taken by the Spanish State authorities before the vessel sank off the coast, nor to the
possible responsibility for the scale of the disaster as a result of those decisions, mentioning only the
accident in which the vessel was involved and weather conditions as factors.

Why has this been forgotten?

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the aim of its communication to the Council
of 5 March 2003 (cid:1) as suggested by its title (cid:1) was to report on action taken by the Union in response to
the disaster.

Accordingly, as indicated by the Commission in its working document reporting on the wreck of the oil
tanker Prestige, presented on the occasion of the hearing by the European Parliamentary Committee on
Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism on 19 March 2003, only the judicial authorities and accident
inquiry boards are competent to establish the exact circumstances of the wreck and identify those
responsible.

(2004/C 11 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1264/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Application of the European Union Solidarity Fund to the Prestige disaster in Galicia and the other

regions affected

Experts have calculated that the cost of repairing the various types of damage caused by the Prestige
disaster could amount to around EUR 5 billion. This figure also corresponds to the amount (cid:1) 5 billion
dollars (cid:1) demanded by the US from the company Exxon Mobil, the owner of the Exxon Valdez, which
was responsible for the disaster in Alaska in 1989. The Regulation on the European Union Solidarity Fund
for disasters, particularly natural disasters, lays down that the fund is applicable where the damage caused
exceeds EUR 3 billion. The Copenhagen European Council applied the Fund without taking this into
account, but only for a sum of EUR 5 million.

Has the Commission analysed the application of the Solidarity Fund in Galicia and the other regions
affected, taking account of the actual level of damage caused and the above reference calculation, which
exceeds EUR 3 billion? Has it submitted a corresponding proposal to the Council, or will it do so?

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/171

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its answer given to his oral question H-0221/03 (1).

(1) Written answer of 13.5.2003.

(2004/C 11 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1269/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Driving licence applications in another EU Member State

Council Directive 91/439 (1) of 29 July 1991 on driving licences stipulates that a person can apply for or
exchange a driving licence in another EU Member State if they are normally resident in the territory of the
Member State concerned. For the purposes of the Directive, ‘normal’ residence means the place where a
person lives for at least 185 days in each calendar year.

To what extent does the Commission think it is possible that someone might fail to meet the 185

1.
days requirement in any Member State? Where should such persons apply for a driving licence?

2.

Has the Commission any information on the consequences of this provision?

To what extent does the Commission consider that this provision is impeding the free movement of

3.
workers and free movement of persons?

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

It is certainly possible that someone might fail to meet the 185 day requirement in any Member State.
Indeed, Article 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (1), which entered
into force on 1 July 1996, explicitly provides for cases where a person ‘lives in turn in different places
situated in two or more Member States’. The definition of normal residence as used in the Directive on
driving licences clearly describes how it should be interpreted. It should be noted that the definition in
question appears in various instruments of Community law.

The Commission does not consider that the principle of normal residence impedes the free movement of
workers and the free movement of persons. The case law of the Court of Justice permits no other
conclusion on this subject (2). The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the Court is
currently considering two questions submitted to it for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of
various provisions in Directive 91/439/EEC, including that of normal residence (3).

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) C-262/99, Louloudakis.
(3) C-476/01 Kapper; C-403/02 Da Silva Carvalho.