WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/03 by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Proceedings for infringement of Community directives.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, State aid, application of EU law, control of State aid, infringement procedure (EU), maritime transport, provision of services, transport company

C 58 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

problems even on approved beaches? If the Commission is not fully satisfied, what measures does it
propose to introduce to improve sea and beach cleanliness?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that current health standards, taken up by the Council Directive
1976/160/EC of 8 December 1975 on the quality of bathing water (1) are outdated, as they are based on
scientific evidence of the nineteen sixties. This is one of the main reasons why, in October 2002, the
Commission proposed a revision of the Directive (2). Compared to the 1976 Directive, which is still in
force, this proposed Directive reduces the risks for bathers of contracting gastro-enteritis (stomach upset)
and AFRI (respiratory illnesses) almost by a factor 3 (3).

As its name states, the Directive deals with the (bacteriological) quality of bathing water, not with the
cleanliness of the beach. The Commission is not in possession of scientific evidence, showing a dose-
the new
response relation between beach contamination and visitor health problems. Nevertheless,
Directive foresees beach inspections on algae, tar, plastic and glass residues.

The proposed Directive is currently being negotiated by the Parliament and by the Council. Until entry into
force of the new Directive, reporting will be carried out according to the 1976 Bathing Water Directive.
Based upon measured bathing water quality, the Commission indicates annually whether bathing waters
comply with Imperative or Guide values. Other organisations may use this indication for establishing a
flagging scheme, but ‘flags’ are not awarded by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.
(2) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
(3) Based upon World Health Organisation (WHO) research, (Kay et al., 1994), published i.a. in Farnham report (2001).

(2004/C 58 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2508/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Proceedings for infringement of Community directives

(29 July 2003)

In response to reports from a number of private shipping companies,
the Commission instituted
infringement proceedings concerning the companies making up the Tirrenia Group and, on 21 June 2001,
issued Decision C(2001) 1684 concerning the Tirrenia di Navigazione company (1).

To sum up the decision, Tirrenia is required to:

(cid:1) separate the cost accounting relating to public services from that relating to commercial services,

specifying the cost of each route plied;

(cid:1) de facto, terminate the six agreements concluded with the Italian state for the 20 years from 1989 to

2008;

(cid:1) approve the 2000/2004 five-year plan and the corresponding economic aid on condition that it

reduces its transport capacity in the summer season by 30 % on an annual basis.

No steps have apparently been taken to date to comply in full and at the right time with the decisions
issued by the Commission.

Could the Commission make the appropriate representations to the Italian authorities to ensure that the
necessary action is taken to enforce Decision C(2001) 1684 and hence that the criteria implied in fair
competition are not undermined?

(1) OJ L 318, 4.12.2001, p. 9.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/175

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member notes, following a number of complaints the Commission launched an
investigation procedure on 6 August 1999 (1) in respect of aid paid to the companies of the Tirrenia
Group (Tirrenia di Navigazione, Adriatica, Siremar, Saremar, Toremar and Caremar) within the framework
of six public service agreements between those companies and the Italian State.

In its final Decision of 21 June 2001 (2) concerning Tirrenia di Navigazione, the Commission authorised
the aid paid to that company between 1990 and the end of 2000 and made any future aid which might be
paid to Tirrenia di Navigazione, until the public service agreement expires, subject to the following
conditions:

(cid:1) over the period 2001-2004, aid paid to Tirrenia di Navigazione must be limited to covering the

additional costs arising from the loss incurred during the provision of the public services;

(cid:1) any change to the level of such services over the period 2001-2004 must be notified to the
Commission in advance. The public service obligations imposed on Tirrenia di Navigazione for the
period 2005-2008 must be notified to the Commission in advance;

(cid:1) as of 2001, the additional costs deriving from the loss incurred during the provision of services
imposed by Italy on Tirrenia di Navigazione must be the subject of separate accounts for each of the
lines concerned.

The aid paid to the other companies in the Tirrenia Group is still being examined, though a final decision
is due to be reached very shortly.

In accordance with Article 5 of the Decision of 21 June 2001, the Italian authorities communicated to the
Commission the interdepartmental decree formalising the commitments they entered into in the context of
the examination procedure for the 2001-2004 period.

Since then, the Commission has received several complaints from private operators alleging that the Italian
authorities have failed to comply with the final Decision of 21 June 2001. Those complaints are being
investigated and the Italian authorities have been contacted regarding the matter.

(1) Case C 64/99, ex NN 68/99.
(2) OJ L 318, 4.12.2001.

(2004/C 58 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2509/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Observance of multilingualism (cid:1) EPSO website

(29 July 2003)

No one language spoken in the Member States has ever been designated the official language of the Union.
Furthermore, Parliament’s and the Commission’s information policy must conform to criteria guaranteeing
a wide measure of transparency.

1. Could the Commission explain why the material presented on the EPSO (European Communities

Personnel Selection Office) website can be read in English, French, and German only?

2. Given that every Union citizen has the right to be informed in his or her own language, does the
Commission not think that the situation described above is tantamount to discrimination against
millions of citizens?

3. What will the Commission do to put matters right?