WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/03 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. Personal injury awards.
Date: 2003-09-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to the courts, approximation of laws, crime, damages, indemnification, victim

C 78 E/164

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

If so, is the Commission satisfied that organisations transporting dangerous goods by sea can employ

2.
DGSAs who have no training or qualification in sea transport?

Does the Commission intend to propose amendments to the current Directive to ensure DGSAs have

3.
a compulsory examination in IMDG Code or an appropriate equivalent?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

According to ADR, RID and Directives 96/35/EC (1) and 2000/18/EC (2), the safety advisers in the United
Kingdom have to have undergone training and passed examination,
in order to have a vocational
certificate, valid for the mode or modes of transport concerned. The scope of the Directives above is the
transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway (referring to ADN). In other words, the
scope does not cover the maritime transport (cid:1) consequently the scope of the safety adviser’s training and
certificate neither.

There is no need to extend the field of a safety adviser, authorised on the basis of ADR/RID/ADN (or
Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC), to maritime transport. Specific rules laid down in the IMDG Code
are applicable to maritime transport of dangerous goods. In addition, under the International Safety
Management code (ISM Code), which is world-wide mandatory for all types of ships operating on
international voyages, it is the responsibility of the company responsible for the ship to engage competent
personnel to ensure that the appropriate safety and environmental protection policy is implemented and
maintained at all levels of the company both for its ship-based and shore-based activities.

The scope of ADR/RID/ADN and of its regular updating machinery in the auspices of United Nations (cid:1)
Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) is clearly limited to the transport of dangerous goods by road,
rail and inland waterway only. Since the scope of Directives 96/35/EC and 2000/18/EC,
in terms of
transport mode, focuses on the one of ADR/RID/ADN, it is not advisable to amend these Directives out-of-
scope. In contrast, it could be considered, whether some kind of horizontal approach could be found for
the safety advising function of the transport of dangerous goods in all four transport modes: by road, rail,
inland waterway and maritime.

(1) Council Directive 96/35/EC of 3 June 1996 on the appointment and vocational qualification of safety advisers for

the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail and inland waterway, OJ L 145, 19.6.1996, p. 10-15.

(2) Directive 2000/18/EC of

the Council of 17 April 2000 on minimum examination
requirements for safety advisers for the transport of dangerous goods by road, rail or inland waterway, OJ L 118,
19.5.2000, p. 41-43.

the Parliament and of

(2004/C 78 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2770/03

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Personal injury awards

The Commission will be aware of the significant disparities that can exist between personal injury awards
for identical circumstances between Member States of the European Union.

Could the Commission inform me of any plans it may have to introduce measures to help ease this
problem?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/165

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has taken a number of specific initiatives in the context of establishing a European area
of justice that will be of benefit for an improved access to justice for personal injury claimants.

It has presented a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims (1), focussing on
compensation from the state. The proposed Directive aims at establishing a minimum standard for all
crime victims in the Union and facilitating access to compensation in cross-border situations. The proposal
is currently under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

The Commission has recently presented a proposal for a Council Regulation on the applicable law to non-
contractual obligations (2). The proposed Regulation would harmonise the conflict of laws of the Member
States for cross-border disputes involving torts or delicts, and will greatly improve the predictability and
clarity of the legal situation for personal injury claimants in cross-border situations.

The Commission supports projects carried out in this area also, which can serve to deepen the debate on
what further measures could be taken at European level and also help to make information on national
laws on personal injury more accessible for lawyers as well as citizens.

However, the Commission has no plans to launch measures towards harmonising personal injury laws in
general. The added value of such an initiative can be questioned and the existence of a legal basis in the EC
Treaty is unclear. Moreover, the main differences between the Member States would appear to be in the
in particular as concerns non-
way different losses are evaluated and compensated for by the courts,
pecuniary losses. This reflects among other things, socio-economic differences between the Member States.
It is not conceivable to proceed towards any kind of common European tariffs to even out such
differences.

(1) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
(2) COM(2003) 427 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0170)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2776/03

by Hans Kronberger (NI) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Conflict between the objectives of Directive 2001/77/EC on renewable energy and the

implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria

In Austria, small hydroelectric power plants are a vital source of energy, supplying 8 % of the electricity
market. They generate electricity cheaply and are environmentally benign, as they do not emit any
pollutants or consume any materials. Consequently, small-scale hydroelectric power makes a substantial
contribution to the attainment of the Kyoto objectives and of the objectives set forth in Directive 2001/77/
EC (1) on renewable energy.

The implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive in Austria will significantly hamper the
operation of the plants and further expansion and investment in this sector. The Water Framework
Directive will restrict opportunities for small hydroelectric power plants to operate because it introduces
new requirements concerning residual water. The Directive abolishes the fundamental right to use water as
an energy source, so that procedural operators may at any time encroach upon existing water rights.
Moreover, there is no provision to enable hydroelectric power plant operators to participate in the drafting
of national water plans in order to defend their interests.