WRITTEN QUESTION E-3828/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships.
Date: 2003-12-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, aid for restructuring, cessation of trading, competition policy, industrial restructuring, shipbuilding

C 84 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In any event, the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is observed in this instance.

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 804.
(2) See page 107.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
(4) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3828/03

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

(12 December 2003)

Subject: The Izar de Fene shipyard and the possibility of regaining authorisation to build merchant ships

The Commission recently took steps designed to allow certain forms of aid for the European ship-building
industry in order to withstand unfair competition from South Korean shipyards. The European Parliament
has adopted a report on the ‘Prestige’ disaster, which included a resolution calling for the building of oil
tankers in regions such as Galicia which have been seriously affected by disasters at sea.

In this context what reason can there be for banning the Izar de Fene shipyard in Galicia from building
merchant ships? Has Spain requested that Izar de Fene (formerly Astano) should be allowed to build ships
of this kind once again? What is the Commission’s position, bearing in mind that the Ferrol district, in
which Izar de Fene is located, lost thousands of jobs as a consequence of the ban imposed on the shipyard,
which has had to confine itself to building off-shore platforms?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

The Commission, in 1997, approved (1) EUR 1 377 million of restructuring aid for the public Spanish
shipyards. In this decision, it was stated that, in order to minimize the possible market distorting effects of
the aid, the annual production for the Spanish yards should not exceed 210 000 cgt for a period of
10 years. Furthermore, the decision stated that the Astano [now called Fene] yard should not reopen for
shipbuilding.
(It was already closed to shipbuilding due to previously approved aid to Spanish
shipbuilding).

The decision to keep Fene (ex-Astano) closed was in order to ensure the restriction on Spanish
shipbuilding production and, therefore, a counterpart for the approved restructuring aid authorised in
1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997, on aid to
certain shipyards under restructuring (2) on which the Commission decision mentioned above was based,
that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/105

The Commission is not able to prejudge what its position would be on the issue of allowing Fene to restart
with shipbuilding.

(1) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.
(2) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3831/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: Current European-American negotiations on the use of Galileo

With reference to press reports (see for example the Frankfurter Rundschau of 3 December 2003)
according to which the US armed forces are to be permitted not only to switch off the Galileo satellite-
based system in the event of crisis and conflicts, but also to weaken and reduce the quality of the Galileo
signal, can the Commission say whether this information is accurate?

I would remind the Commission of the European Parliament resolution on the
At the same time,
ministerial meeting of the European Space Agency (15 May 2003), which stressed the need for Europe to
have independent access to space and highlighted Europe’s common interest in this regard.

Europe’s independence from America was one of the main arguments used to justify the immense costs
involved in developing this satellite navigation system, at least half of which are to be borne by the
taxpayer.

Can the Commission say whether (and how) it will act to ensure that European interests are not sacrificed
either to those of the US military or to those of certain sectors of (US) industry at the next round of
negotiations in Washington in January 2004?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The agreement being negotiated with the United States is intended to ensure that the Global Positioning
System (GPS) and Galileo are compatible and interoperable, to the mutual benefit of all users, who will
gain in terms of accuracy and reliability.

To that end, a structure for the signals emitted by the Galileo system needs to be established which will
meet the essential national security requirements of both the United States and Europe.

Agreement has just been reached regarding Galileo’s governmental signal (commonly known as the Public
Regulated Service (cid:1) PRS) without calling into question either its quality or Europe’s authority regarding
continuity of service.

Discussions are continuing regarding the other services for which the European side’s objective is again to
retain full control and optimum performance.

It should be added that Europe has refused to grant
improvements to be made to the structure of Galileo’s signals.

the United States a right of veto over any

The Commission and the Member States are thus aiming to preserve Europe’s independence while
providing users with the benefits of GPS/Galileo interoperability.

Against this background, the costs of Galileo (cid:1) equivalent to the cost of 150 kilometres of urban
motorway (cid:1) are in no way exorbitant given the economic, social and societal benefits Galileo will bring.