WRITTEN QUESTION P-3178/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund.
Date: 2003-10-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, aid to disaster victims, budgetary procedure, degradation of the environment, economic support, tanker

C 78 E/236

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In respect of DVD and Video: The scheme is aimed at European companies, whose activities contribute to
the strengthening of the distribution sector for European works on media intended for private use. It
encourages publishers to invest in digital technology and the promotion of non-domestic European works
on video and DVD.

(2004/C 78 E/0238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3178/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Damage caused by the Prestige: fresh evaluation and the Solidarity Fund

On 9 October, the EP authorised the Commission to mobilise the Solidarity Fund at the urging of the
Italian, Portuguese and Spanish Governments in respect of earthquakes, forest fires and the Prestige disaster
respectively. The Commission proposed percentages in terms of the requests submitted by the various
governments and their own damage estimates, namely EUR 436 million in the case of the ‘Prestige’; Spain
was awarded EUR 8,6 million, while Italy was awarded EUR 46,7 million and Portugal, EUR 48,5 million.

The Portuguese Government had submitted an initial estimate of EUR 509 million, and later submitted an
additional estimate raising this to EUR 718 million. The Spanish Government, however, despite the fact
that the Prestige disaster is not over, stuck to its initial estimate, made a mere two months after the disaster
had begun, showing no concern thereafter to make any supplementary evaluation of the damage.

Only five days after the EP approved these subsidies, the Spanish Government announced, in the Chamber
of Deputies, an evaluation which put the damage at EUR 700 million, EUR 264 million more than the
figure supplied to the Commission. If the Spanish authorities had submitted a supplementary estimate to
the Commission which reflected this revision, the Solidarity Fund allocation for Spain, under identical
conditions, would have been EUR 13,86 million, i.e. EUR 5 234 million more than was actually awarded.

Has the Spanish Government, like the Portuguese Government, submitted a further evaluation in addition
to its initial request?

Would the Commission be prepared to review the amount granted to Spain, should the Spanish
Government submit a supplementary estimate, so that those hit by the ‘Prestige’ disaster could receive the
aid they rightly deserve from the Solidarity Fund?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

The initial Spanish application to mobilise the European Union Solidarity Fund for the Prestige disaster was
received on 13 January 2003, containing preliminary estimates of the costs for cleaning up the coastline,
cleaning and restoration of
the Atlantic Islands national park, operations at sea and other related
operations. The estimates did not include those relating to finding a permanent solution for the wreck.

Further information was transmitted by the Spanish authorities on 13 May 2003, 13 June 2003 and
17 June. It was on the basis of this information that the Commission proposed a grant to Spain under the
Solidarity Fund that was based on the latest
in the
explanatory memorandum to draft amending budget, the original figure had to be adjusted to exclude
certain indirect damage, on the one hand and, to include the estimated cost of the permanent solution to
the wreck on the other hand.

figures received. As explained in more detail

The Commission has no knowledge on how the estimate for damage presented to the Spanish parliament
of EUR 700 million was calculated, nor whether this amount contains any damage not eligible under the
Solidarity Fund.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/237

In the event of a continuation of damage from the wreck, the Commission can accept new evidence up
until the moment it makes its proposal for an amending budget to Parliament and the Council. Further
updating, while the budgetary procedure is in progress,
is possible only if the two branches of the
budgetary authority agree. The Solidarity Fund regulation does not, however, allow the amount to be
raised once the grant has been made available.

(2004/C 78 E/0239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3187/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Free movement of bankrupt persons in the EU

(27 October 2003)

A person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK is free to live anywhere they wish in the UK.

Is a person who has been declared bankrupt in the UK free to live anywhere they wish in the EU in the
same way that a citizen not declared bankrupt would be able to?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

A Union citizen who has been declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom is free to live anywhere he/she
wishes in the territory of the Union if he/she fulfils the conditions applying to the right of residence under
Community legislation, i.e. being a worker or self-employed person or having adequate resources and
sickness insurance.

In this respect, Community legislation does not provide any specific limitation to the right of free
movement.

(2004/C 78 E/0240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3192/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: clarification of President Prodi’s powers of intervention

The statements made by former Eurostat Director-General Yves Franchet about the recent events which
revealed serious irregularities in the running of Eurostat contracts suggest that Commissioners Solbes,
Kinnock and Schreyer were to blame since they were aware of possible cases of fraud.

Mr Franchet claims to have informed the Commissioners and President Prodi of his suspicions of
maladministration within the Statistical Office in September 2002. In any case, at the hearing before the
Conference of Presidents on 25 September 2003, Mr Prodi stated that he was informed of the seriousness
of the situation in May 2003.

The affair is now being investigated by OLAF, the French courts and the Commission itself with a view to
obtaining reliable evidence and establishing who was responsible.

Under new Article 217(4) of the Treaty of Nice, the power to ask a Commissioner to resign lies with the
President of the Commission.

Quite apart from their actual responsibility which remains to be proven, the conduct of the above-
mentioned Commissioners has been called into question, at least in terms of ‘maladministration’ and
‘negligence’, as defined in the ‘First report on allegations regarding fraud’ submitted by the EP’s Committee
of Independent Experts on 15 March 1999 at the time of the Santer scandal.