WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Use of impact assessment and liability insurance to deal with oil damage.
Date: 2003-05-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: civil liability, economic consequence, environmental liability, indemnification, indemnity insurance, oil pollution

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/137

The Council is aware that due to the delays with the appointment of the members of the Joint Supervisory
Body (JSB), also the practical implementation of the data protection rules have taken some time. However,
this process has now been initiated and the Council expects that it will be seized rapidly with the necessary
documents allowing it to approve the rules of procedure on data protection.

(1) Doc. 9771/03 Eurojust 12.
(2)
(3) Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime

Joint Action of 29 June 1998 on the creation of a European Judicial Network (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4).

(OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1).

(4) Council Recommendation of 8 May 2003 on a model agreement for setting up a joint investigation team (JIT)

(OJ C 121, 25.5.2003, p. 1).

(5) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ L 162, 20.6.2002, p. 1).
(6) OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 3.

(2004/C 51 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1752/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Use of impact assessment and liability insurance to deal with oil damage

Disasters at sea are not just an environmental problem, but also do immense economic harm. Oil damage
might, for example, undermine the utility value and by the same token the asset value of seaside property
and land. It could impede the operation of industrial plant and power stations situated on the coast. For
instance, sea water-cooled nuclear power stations would have to be shut down for a long time, even years,
because oil could clog up the cooling systems, leading to serious consequences.

The provisions applicable to accidents at nuclear power stations might serve as a model to deal with
potential damage. The impact of an oil tanker accident would be assessed to help determine the cumulative
probability distribution of costs and other consequences. Secondly, oil liability insurance similar to nuclear
liability insurance would be needed to cover the wide-ranging consequences described above.

In what ways, over and above existing legislative measures and those being drawn up, does the
impact assessment and liability insurance, as mentioned in the preceding
Commission think that
paragraphs, might be useful in gauging and remedying the wider consequences of oil damage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(8 July 2003)

The Commission would like to draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the situation
and type of damage she refers to are covered by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
Pollution Damage (‘the Civil Liability Convention’ or ‘CLC’) and the International Convention on the
Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage (‘the Fund
Convention’).

These two conventions, amended in 1992, constitute a regime that covers pollution damage caused by
spills of persistent oil from tankers in the coastal waters (up to 200 miles from the coastline) of the
participating States. The loss and damage covered by the regime includes property and, to some extent,
economic losses and costs of environmental restoration as well as preventive measures, including clean-up
costs. 85 States, including all Member States, except Luxembourg and Austria, are Contracting Parties to
the 1992 Conventions.

C 51 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The first liability tier, the liability of the registered ship-owner, is governed by the CLC. The ship-owner’s
liability is strict and thus not depending on fault or negligence on his part. The owner is normally allowed
to limit his liability to an amount that
is linked to the tonnage of the ship, presently maximum
EUR 80 million for the biggest ships. The CLC also requires ship-owners to maintain liability insurance and
gives claimants the right of direct action against the insurer up to the limits of the ship-owner’s liability.

The CLC regime is supplemented by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (the IOPC Fund),
which was established through the Fund Convention in order to compensate victims when the ship-
owner’s liability is insufficient to cover the damage. The maximum compensation by the IOPC Fund is
currently around EUR 175 million. The IOPC Fund is financed by contributions from companies or other
entities receiving oil carried by sea.

On 16 May 2003, a Diplomatic Conference convened under the auspices of the International Maritime
Organization adopted a new Protocol to the existing oil pollution liability and compensation conventions.
This Protocol establishes a Supplementary Fund, which signifies a five-fold increase of the compensation
available to victims (up to EUR 910 million).

The Commission has welcomed the establishment of the new supplementary fund, as it will greatly help to
ensure the full and expeditious payment of victims of future oil spills. It has urged the Member States to
ratify the new protocol immediately in order to have it fully operational before the end of 2003.

(2004/C 51 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1756/03

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Possible abuse of authority

There have been fresh incidents in recent days on the periphery of Portuguese waters following the
incursion of Spanish fishing vessels. The Portuguese authorities respond to these misdemeanours, which
regrettably occur on a fairly regular basis, with firearms and other violent means which are totally
disproportionate, particularly between two neighbouring countries which both belong to the EU.

In the light of the above, and bearing in mind Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, which refers to the principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and
penalties, does the Council consider the severity of the penalties to be disproportionate to the criminal
offence? If so, how does the Council believe that such abuses of authority in the EU might be curbed?

Reply

(2 October 2003)

As the Honourable Parliamentarian is aware, the Council adopted at its December 2002 Council, within
the Regulation on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common
Fisheries Policy (CFP), a new set of rules on control and enforcement. Those rules stipulate that Member
States shall control activities carried out within the scope of the CFP on their territory or waters subject to
their sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Concerning the incidents to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers, between Spanish fishermen and
the Portuguese authorities, the Council is not aware of such incidents. The application of Community and
national law is not subject to review by the Council.