WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/03 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Multiple-fatality accidents on roads in Greece.
Date: 2003-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Greece, commercial vehicle, common transport policy, driving period, police checks, road safety, speed control, traffic regulations, transport accident

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/123

Primary responsibility for dealing with illegal content (including child pornography) is with the appropriate
law enforcement and judicial authorities of the Member States, which co-operate internationally in the
fight against child pornography on the Internet through the existing channels of communications, such as
Europol and Interpol. But since 1996 the Union has been a forerunner in the fight against illegal and
harmful content. The Safer Internet Programme provides funding for activities to deal with illegal and
harmful content, as part of a coherent approach by the European Union. The Safer Internet Action Plan,
which ended on 31 December 2002, had been extended. This allows activities to continue for a further
two years by taking account of lessons learned and new technologies, and to ensure co-ordination with
parallel work in the field of network and information security. Safer Internet aims to ensure more
extensive interfacing with national programmes and actions, improved exchange of information and best
practice between Member State activities as well as between the action lines of the programme, including
the setting up of software which enable parents and/or teachers to limit children’s’ access to inappropriate
material on the Internet and dedicated web services which provide safe access to the Internet.

Other elements of the Union strategy to combat child pornography include legal instruments and practical
measures against computer crime and child pornography. These include the Commission proposal for a
Council Framework Decision (1) on approximation of laws and sanctions of the in the field of the sexual
exploitation of children, with particular reference to child pornography on the Internet (2), and the Council
the Recommendation of 24 September 1998 (3) on Protection of Minors and Human Dignity and the
Council Decision of 29 May 2000 to combat child pornography on the Internet (4).

In January 2003 the Commission received the ‘International Child Exploitation Database’ feasibility study,
which has been co-funded under the STOP II Programme and run by a project group composed by experts
from several Member States. Europol has been fully associated to the works of the project group. The
group has produced various recommendations, including the key recommendation that a sophisticated
networked international child sexual exploitation image database, building on the fledgling system at
Interpol, is urgently required, and both technically and legally possible. The project group agreed that the
database would have to take into account the different national laws governing images of child sexual
exploitation and protection of personal data. It was also agreed that Europol would be given access to the
database for analytical purposes.

The Commission is not responsible for the actual setting up of such an international database. This is left
to the appreciation of the EU Member States and other countries wishing to participate. The Commission
has received on 7 March 2003 an application by several Member States, Europol and other third countries
under the AGIS programme for funding an implementation study as concrete follow-up to the above
mentioned feasibility study. The application is now evaluated according to the rules of the funding
programme. A final decision will be announced by mid-June 2003.

(1) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.
(2) The Council reached a common approach on this Commission proposal on 14 October 2002. Two Member States

(NL and SW) have still parliamentary reservations on the proposal.

(3) OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.
(4) OJ L 138, 9.6.2000.

(2004/C 33 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject: Multiple-fatality accidents on roads in Greece

There is a very high frequency of road accidents in Greece, which puts the country in the unenviable
position of top of the EU ‘league table’. A typical example was the multiple-fatality accident which
occurred on 13 April 2003 at Tembi, while a similar accident happened a month ago when a bus careered

C 33 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

off a bridge. In those two accidents alone, the death toll was almost 40, with many more injured. In
Greece, HGVs are banned from the roads at weekends, but only between June and September.

Do exactly the same rules apply in the other Member States or are HGVs totally banned from the roads at
weekends throughout the year? In which Member States are HGVs allowed on the roads at weekends?
Does the Commission have any information concerning the illegal removal of speed limiters from HGVs
and buses in Greece and the specific penalties imposed by the Greek authorities? Do the Greek authorities
carry out serious checks and have penalties been imposed on the basis of data provided by tachographs
fixed to HGVs and buses? What data have the Greek authorities provided concerning the penalties which
they have imposed on drivers and owners of HGVs who overload their vehicles or carry dangerous loads?
What measures has the Commission taken to increase the awareness of the Greek authorities in relation to
the above matters and how have they responded?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Regarding the circulation of heavy goods vehicles on Saturdays and Sundays, eight Member States (Greece,
Spain, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal) have chosen to impose restrictions on such traffic
on their territory.
In general, these rules have been established in isolation and therefore they vary
considerably from one country to another.

At present there are no rules harmonising these restrictions at Community level. The Member States may
therefore impose them, subject to compliance with the principles of Community law (proportionality of
measures, non-discrimination, compatibility with the principles of free movement of goods and the
freedom to provide services).

To put an end to the problems caused by the lack of harmonisation, in March 1998 the Commission sent
Parliament and the Council a proposal for a Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for
driving restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads (1). The
harmonisation of driving restrictions on the main international routes would facilitate the transport of
goods by road in the Community, make the rules laying down derogations more transparent and improve
the functioning of the internal market and the working conditions of drivers involved in international
transport operations. The proposal has not yet been adopted.

Regarding the checking of speed limitation devices and the penalties imposed where such devices are
absent or not functioning properly, Directive 2000/30/EC (2) of Parliament and of the Council of 6 June
2000 lays down certain rules. The Directive has been applicable since 1 January 2003. It does not impose
a minimum frequency of inspections, nor penalties, which are the responsibility of the Member States. It
stipulates that the Member States must transmit to the Commission by 31 March 2005 at the latest the
data on the number of vehicles checked and that this information must be forwarded to Parliament. The
Commission has statistics on the malfunctioning of speed limitation devices in certain countries, which it
transmitted to Parliament and the Council in 2001 (3). However, it does not have any data for Greece,
which is not one of the countries mentioned in the report.

Regarding the checking of chronotachographs and the application of legislation on working time and rest
periods, the Commission is having trouble obtaining data from the Greek authorities in a format which
would allow it to draw up its biennial rapport on the implementation of this legislation. It has initiated
infringement proceedings against Greece. Unlike the other Member States, Greece has not provided details
of the penalties applied when the legislation is infringed.

As things stand at present,
transport of dangerous substances are the responsibility of the Member States.

inspections to check overloading or the application of legislation on the

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/125

As indicated in its White Paper on transport policy (4), the Commission believes that a major effort should
be made to improve road safety and that to achieve this, priority must be given to the application of rules
on working conditions, road safety rules and transport legislation. It intends to propose measures shortly
to tighten up roadside inspections.

(1) COM(98) 115 final; OJ C 198, 24.6.1998; amended by COM(2000) 759 final; OJ C 120 E, 24.4.2001.
(2) Directive 2000/30/EC on the technical roadside inspection of the roadworthiness of commercial vehicles circulating

in the Community; OJ L 203, 10.8.2000.

(3) Report to Parliament and to the Council on the implementation of Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the

installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community.

(4) European transport policy for 2010: time to decide, COM(2001) 370 final.

(2004/C 33 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/03

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

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Treatment and Community funding of the ‘Galicia Plan’ submitted by the Spanish Government in

the aftermath of the Prestige disaster

It

it was not aware of

In its reply to my oral question at the April part-session on the information available to the Commission
on the ‘Galicia Plan’ submitted by the Spanish Government in the aftermath of the Prestige disaster and on
fund and cohesion fund spending specifically scheduled for this plan in the current
the structural
programming period (2000-2006),
the Spanish
the Commission stated that
Government’s plan and that ‘it had been informed of preparations for the plan by the Member himself’.
The fact that the Commission had not been informed of the plan’s existence is surprising, given that the
Commission is, in the final analysis, responsible for taking important decisions on a substantial part of the
funding.
is also surprising when one considers the importance which the Spanish and Galician
authorities intend to give the plan and the debate which has taken place both in Galicia and more
generally in Spain on the causes and consequences of the Prestige disaster, the need for compensation, and
the scale and objectives of the ‘Galicia Plan’ as a European issue. The Commission should know that, by a
decision of the Spanish Government, ‘Galicia Plan’ investments amounting to EUR 12 459 billion are to be
divided up into three parts. EUR 1 billion are due to be invested under the heading ‘new initiatives’ in an
environmental recovery programme, 21,3 million in the promotion of Galicia’s image, 265,4 million in
economic regeneration, 2 946 in new high-speed railway lines and 676 million in new motorways. Under
‘plans in progress’ EUR 6 481 billion are due to be invested in transport infrastructure (2000-2007),
481 million in water distribution (2003-2008) and 290 million in the forestry plan (2003-2008). ‘Other
measures’ include EUR 26 million in aid for individuals’ or companies’ loss of work as a result of the
disaster, without specifying how much a definitive solution to the shipwreck off the Galician coast will
cost. The TGV (high-speed railway) investments will cover the planned link between France and Madrid via
Valladolid and a new link between France and Galicia. Given this state of affairs, does the Commission still
maintain that it is unaware of funding for the ‘Galicia Plan’? In view of the project’s scale and objectives,
are resources available for the 2000-2006 period to cover the cost of investments under this plan? Does
the Commission intend to co-finance the planned TGV link along the coast between Galicia and the French
border? To what extent is it planning to take part in the co-financing of the EUR 1 billion maritime and
coastal ‘environmental recovery programme’ within the ‘Galicia Plan’? Does the Commission intend to
continue holding meetings on this subject with Spanish Government representatives? Has it taken the
initiative of asking the Spanish Government to provide information on the ‘Galicia Plan’, which would
require a significant contribution from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund?