WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/03 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council. Provisions banning traffic in Austria.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, free movement of goods, free movement of persons, infringement of EU law, road traffic, traffic regulations, transit

C 51 E/164

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Reply

(7 October 2003)

It is correct, as stated in the question, that the Community legislation (1) aimed at the accelerated phasing-
out of single-hull tankers does not apply to ships owned or operated by a State and used on government
non-commercial service, among them warships and naval auxiliary ships. This exemption is to be found in
other parts of Community maritime legislation as well, and is fully in line with international rules, in casu
Marpol.

Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 is currently under revision under the co-decision procedure, with the
adoption of the legislative act in first reading expected on 22 July 2003, following the Council’s approval
of the amendments to the Commission proposal voted by Parliament on 4 June 2003. This revision will
continue to exclude warships and auxiliary navy ships, from the scope of the Regulation.

However, according to Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or
equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, Member States shall, as far as reasonable and
practicable, endeavour to respect Community legislation on this matter.

It can be added that currently a single-hull tanker covered by EC Regulation built in 1990 shall be phased
out before 2007 (tankers belonging to ‘category 1’) or 2015 (tankers belonging to ‘categories 2 and 3’).
Once the Regulation amending Regulation (EC) 417/2002 has entered into force, a 1990 single-hull oil
tanker in category 1 will be phased out in 2005 and category 2 and 3 tankers in 2010. Such a single-hull
tanker would however be banned from transporting heavy grades of oil (cid:1) with immediate effect if it of
more than 5 000 tons deadweight or in 2008, at the latest, if it is of less than 5 000 tons.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the
accelerated phasing-in of double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/94, OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.

(2004/C 51 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1957/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Provisions banning traffic in Austria

The President of the Tyrolean regional government, Herwig van Staa, recently issued an astonishing ban on
the circulation of motor vehicles weighing more than 7,5 tonnes on a section of motorway between Kundl
and Ampass in Tyrol, in accordance with the following provisions:

(cid:1) from 1 June this year the ban on night traffic, which was in force during the winter, will be

reintroduced;

(cid:1) furthermore, from 1 August there will be a 24-hours-a-day ban on vehicles in certain sectors: waste,

scrap metal, cereals, timber, minerals, motor vehicles, steel and stone;

(cid:1) the ban will also affect the mining and transport of porphyry, which in the Alpine region is the sole
and irreplaceable source of income for thousands of families and hundreds of SMEs, which would
suffer incalculable damage.

Whilst one can understand the Tyrolean authorities’ reasons for the ban, it is only fair to remind them that
solutions of this kind contravene the provisions of the Treaty, in that they restrict the free movement of
goods within the single market.
is unacceptable that regional authorities should be allowed to
compromise a great deal of work which has already been done by adopting unilateral decisions outside the
sphere of Community rules.

It

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/165

in view of the fact that the long-standing problem of eco-points applied unilaterally by
Furthermore,
Austria has been challenged by all the other Member States and is going to be abolished as a result of
European Parliament pressure, can the Council say:

1. whether it does not consider, once again, that the Austrian Government and the Tyrolean regional
government are contravening the EU Treaty as regards rules concerning the free movement of goods
and persons;

2. what steps it intends to take to ensure the withdrawal of these unilateral decisions, which do not

correspond to Community law;

3. whether it does not consider that these repeated violations of the Treaty should be brought before the

Court of Justice in Luxembourg?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council recalls that it is up to the Commission, in its capacity as Guardian of the Treaty, to undertake
the necessary actions (cid:1) including, as the case may be, an action before the Court of Justice (cid:1) in order to
ascertain whether the driving ban to which the Honourable Parliamentarian refers constitutes a violation of
Community law. In this context, the Council is aware that the Commission is already engaged in the
process of undertaking the actions which it deems necessary.

(2004/C 51 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1958/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Figures on payments under the EAGGF Guarantee Section

In his Written Question P-3775/02 (1) António Campos asked the Commission about ‘the total amount of
money spent each year by the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100 largest beneficiaries in each Member
State’. The Commission’s answer, however, relates only to direct aid, which accounts for no more than
about 60 % of aggregate EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure.

Does the Commission not have information in the CATS database that would enable it to answer
Mr Campos’s question about EAGGF Guarantee Section funding as a whole?

What is the total amount of money spent each year under the EAGGF Guarantee Section on the 100
largest beneficiaries in each Member State, including expenditure over and above direct aid?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 138.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Two tables which are sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat show for 14
Member States (1) the total amounts and the percentages which are perceived by the 100 most important
recipients of direct aid (in the sense of Council Regulation (CE) No 1259/1999 (2)) and other aid paid under
the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee (3).

For the table relating to the other payments under EAGGF Guarantee it is essential to elaborate on the
following points, also in order to explain why a relatively large part of these aid payments is paid to a
limited number of recipients.