WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Council. Use of a Spanish single-hull oil tanker in the war in Iraq.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Iraq, application of EU law, maritime safety, prevention of pollution, tanker, warships

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/163

(2004/C 51 E/180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1947/03

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

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Death of 62 Spanish soldiers in an accident in Turkey on their return from Afghanistan

According to media reports, the aircraft involved in the appalling accident in which 62 Spanish soldiers
died as they returned from Afghanistan had been chartered from a Ukrainian company (cid:1) UM Air (cid:1) by a
British contractor, Chapman Freeborn, commissioned by NATO to carry troops from the Member States.
Does the Council know why a company such as UM Air could be given responsibility for transporting the
troops of a Member State and NATO? Did the company provide all the necessary guarantees for carrying
out this task? Why do the Member States not have means of transport of their own? Is the Council aware
that the families of soldiers who died in the accident are lodging complaints about the fact that the aircraft
was in poor condition, on the basis of statements made by soldiers who had travelled in the same aircraft?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Honourable Member of Parliament is certainly aware that the EU Council is not involved in the
military operations in Afghanistan. Therefore the Council has no specific information on the planning or
conduct of the operation, including logistical aspects such as deployments and other movements of troops,
including the possible chartering of civilian assets by participants from third parties.

(2004/C 51 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1956/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Council

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Use of a Spanish single-hull oil tanker in the war in Iraq

The Spanish Government decided to send a military oil tanker, the Marqués de la Ensenada, to assist allied
troops during the war in Iraq. The Marqués de la Ensenada, a single-hull oil tanker, was built in 1990.

In view of the fact that:

(cid:1) the Commission is currently engaged in commendable work to eliminate single-hull oil tankers,

especially through its proposal to amend Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 (1),

(cid:1) the aforementioned Regulation does not apply either to warships or to auxiliary warships,

(cid:1) in wartime there is a heightened risk of attack resulting in the sinking of such ships and, consequently,

in an oil slick,

would the Council be willing to take steps to urge its component Member States to withdraw single-hull
tankers from their naval units and replace them with double-hull tankers, as proposed in Community
legislation?

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002, p. 1.

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