WRITTEN QUESTION E-3963/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Geroi Sevastopolya — Safety at Sea.
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU waters, accession to the European Union, carriage of goods, cooperation policy, international transport, maritime safety, tanker, transit

C 84 E/122

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Regulation which governs driving time and rest periods for drivers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/
85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport (1),
sets out a list of exemptions in Article 4. Under Article 4(6) vehicles which are used for highway
maintenance and control as well as refuse collection and disposal are exempt from the Regulation’s
provisions. It therefore follows that for the period in which these vehicles carry out such activities, they are
excluded from the Regulation’s provisions. Thus drivers of the two categories of vehicle mentioned (cid:1)
refuse lorries and gritting vehicles (cid:1) are not subject to the Regulation’s provisions.

This being so, only certain provisions of the general working time Directive (Council Directive 93/104/EC
of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time (2), as amended by
Directive 2000/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 (3)) are applicable to such
mobile workers, including, amongst others, the requirements that they should have adequate rest, and that
they should work 48 hours per week on average within a reference period of four months that can be
extended, by the Member State concerned, up to 12 months.

In addition, Member States may make national rules to cover these particular drivers.

(1) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985.
(2) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(2004/C 84 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3952/03

by Catherine Stihler (PSE) to the Commission

(22 December 2003)

Subject: Standards on laying gas pipes

Can the Commission inform me what standards are in force in Europe so far as the laying of gas pipes
through domestic properties is concerned?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission does not have any competence on the question of the grant of rights of way for laying
gas pipelines through domestic properties, which entirely falls under the competence of Member States.
As a consequence, the Commission does not dispose of any information on corresponding standards in
force in Europe.

(2004/C 84 E/0159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3963/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Geroi Sevastopolya (cid:1) Safety at Sea

The Russian petrol tanker Geroi Sevastopolya (‘Heroes of Sebastopol’) (cid:1) a 24-year-old single-hull vessel
transporting 50 million tonnes of fuel oil (cid:1) is following a course similar to that of the ‘Prestige’, which
one year ago caused an environmental disaster in Spanish waters, and over the next few days it will sail
through international waters close to Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom,
France, Spain and Portugal.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/123

The Californian company Westport Petroleum has chartered the vessel in question to transport its cargo
from Latvia to Singapore via the Strait of Gibraltar, the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, taking three or
four weeks for the journey.

Having inspected the vessel,
grounds for preventing the vessel from setting sail.

inspectors appointed by the Commission concluded that there were no

The Spanish and Portuguese navies have announced that they will not authorise the Geroi Sevastopolya to
sail through their exclusive economic zones.

The Commission has expressed its intention to keep a close eye on the vessel’s progress (even if it remains
within international waters) and at the most recent Council meeting of transport ministers it called upon
the ten acceding countries to enforce the ban on single-hull vessels with immediate effect, without waiting
until 1 May 2004.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

(cid:1) What information does the Commission hold regarding the Geroi Sevastopolya’s current progress?

(cid:1) Does the Commission still believe the vessel to be seaworthy?

(cid:1) What flanking measures and emergency action has the Commission taken or is it intending to take?

(cid:1) What response has it received to the call it issued to the acceding countries?

(cid:1) What recent action has the Commission taken vis-à-vis the Member States and its international
partners with a view to agreeing and implementing more stringent and more effective rules governing
safety at sea?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

tanker Geroi
The Commission’s attention was drawn to the
Sevastopolya, which was due to leave the Latvian port of Ventspils bound for Singapore, carrying around
50 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil along the coasts of Europe on its way.

the Russian single-hull

case of

On 6 December 2003, the ship left the port of Ventspils and passed through Danish territorial waters,
where a deep-sea pilot came on board and a patrol of Danish marines escorted the ship until it rounded
Skagen, the northernmost point of Denmark, on 9 December 2003. The ship then entered the North Sea,
passing through German and Dutch territorial waters. On 11 December 2003, the ship negotiated the
Strait of Dover and entered the Channel in the British area of jurisdiction. The ship left the Channel on the
evening of 12 December 2003 and, within the jurisdiction of the French Maritime Prefecture of the
Atlantic, headed into the Ushant traffic separation scheme. The Geroi Sevastopolya then steered a course
for the Cape of Good Hope, choosing to reach Asia via the southern route rather than use the Strait of
Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. The Geroi Sevastopolya left European waters on 18 December 2003.

A team of inspectors from several EU countries, coordinated by the European Maritime Safety Agency
(EMSA), inspected the ship before it set sail from Ventspils. The inspectors found no grounds warranting
detention of the vessel by the Latvian authorities.

A crisis group was set up between the Commission and the EMSA to track the ship from the time it set
sail from the port of Ventspils until it left European waters. The EMSA remained in permanent contact
with the competent maritime authorities of the countries whose waters the ship passed through, and
received regular reports from them on the tanker’s situation and exact position.

With regard to the accession countries affected by the Geroi Sevastopolya affair (cid:1) particularly the Baltic
countries and especially Latvia (cid:1) the Latvian authorities cooperated fully to facilitate the work of the team
of inspectors coordinated by the EMSA, which acted with the assistance and under the responsibility of the
Latvian inspectors who had inspected the vessel in the context of port State control. Moreover, on the
basis of an Estonian proposal, the Environment Ministers of the three Baltic Republics have adopted a

C 84 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

proposal to bring forward the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (1), which entered into
force in the EU on 21 October 2003, prohibiting the transport of heavy grades of oil by single-hull
tankers.

The Commission wants to strengthen Community legislation on maritime safety still further, both by
adopting the post-‘Prestige’ measures and by preparing a new series of measures by mid-2004 aimed at
strengthening maritime safety. The Union will also continue to act in the framework of the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) to increase maritime safety at global level. Following a new EU proposal,
unanimously supported by the accession countries, the IMO adopted an amendment to the Marpol
level, provisions similar to those of the
Convention in December 2003 incorporating, at international
abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1726/03.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending
Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for
single-hull oil tankers, OJ L 249, 1.10.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor’s office into an EUR 5 million fraud against

the European Union

According to an article that appeared in the newspaper La Sicilia on 12 December 2003, entitled ‘Catania
(cid:1) EUR 5 million EU fraud’:

(cid:1) members of the Guardia di Finanza’s excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of
fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling
EUR 5 million;

(cid:1) the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the

production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area;

(cid:1) however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite
remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members
vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein
and Luxembourg;

(cid:1) around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of
a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office
based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have
connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company;

(cid:1) a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite
different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was
declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been
purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese;

(cid:1) in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from
where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs
of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and
imported from there;

(cid:1) invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of

the fictitious costs.

Is the Commission aware of these events, and what measures has it taken or will it take in this regard? Has
OLAF been notified of this situation, and has it launched or will it launch an investigation?