WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/04 by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unlawful imposition of identification marks for sports craft in the Venice lagoon.
Date: 2004-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Veneto, maritime transport, pleasure craft, tax system, technical specification, vehicle registration

C 78 E/940

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0994)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0206/04

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject: Unlawful imposition of identification marks for sports craft in the Venice lagoon

The Venice Commissioner for wave action decreed, by virtue of Order No 19/2002 of 14 May 2002, that
‘all motorised sports craft exceeding a power of 10 hp must, before they can circulate in the Venice
lagoon, bear the requisite identification mark … applied to both sides of their stern’. The registration of
craft (irrespective of size) is based on engine power, regardless of whether or not the engine is removable.

The identification marks are issued against payment of EUR 25 (EUR 50 in the case of renewal or loss).
The Order is based on Articles 32 to 34 of the Rules on lagoon navigation in the Province of Venice
(Doc. No 247721 of 25.06.1998) which lays down registration and transfer of ownership procedures, and
in essence the holding of registers on sports vessels, defined on the basis not of length, tonnage or any
other criterion, but simply on that of engine power, whether removable or not, where this exceeds 10 hp
and is for sports use.

The Order is based on a general provision set out in Article 11(3) of Legislative decree No 422 of
19 November 1997, although Italy transposed Directive 94/25/EC (1) into national law by virtue of Law
No 52 of 6 February 1996 and sports craft were removed from the maritime registers.

A definitive legal framework governing pleasure boats was recently introduced in Italy by way of Law
No 172 of 8.7.2003, Article 13(1) of which refers to ‘sports craft, vessels with hulls measuring 10 metres
or less …’, while the second paragraph of that Article provides that ‘sports craft shall be exempt from the
requirement on entry in the register referred to in Article 9 …’. There are therefore no applicable
registration plates, identification marks or registers.

The claim that there is a need for identification of these craft by means of registration plates or
identification marks is invalid because:

(cid:1) all motorised vessels are issued with an engine certificate, which is then attached to the insurance

certificates;

(cid:1) all boatmasters must have an identity/insurance document (all sports craft in circulation can be
identified via their insurance plates, as can their circulation period (annual or quarterly insurance) and
their installed power);

(cid:1) the identification of an offending vessel at distance by means of its registration plate or identification
mark has never been accepted as sufficient evidence in court (photos and/or offence reports are
required);

(cid:1) an inventory/census is kept of sports craft in circulation.

In the light of the above, what initiatives will the Commission take to put a end to this clear breach of
Community law?

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(11 February 2004)

Directive 94/25/EC (1), to which the Honourable Member refers in his written question,
is based on
Article 95 of the EC Treaty and has therefore, as its primary objective to ensure the establishment and
functioning of the internal market. The Directive harmonises the design and construction requirements
with which recreational craft have to comply as a condition for placing them on the market and putting
them into service.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/941

The Directive does not contain provisions aimed at harmonising the conditions of use of recreational craft
after they have been placed on the market and put into service. Its Article 2(2) explicitly specifies that the
provisions of the Directive shall not prevent Member States from adopting, in compliance with the EC
Treaty, provisions concerning navigation on certain waters for the purpose of protection of
the
environment, the fabric of waterways, and ensuring the safety of waterways, providing that this does not
require modification to craft conforming to the Directive.

Assessment of the Ordinance No 19/2002 issued by the Commissioner of the Governement delegated for
the maritime traffic in the lagoon of Venice (ordinanza no 19/2002 emanata dal Commissario del Governo
Delegato al Traffico Acqueo nella Laguna di Venezia) has led the Commission to conclude that the
imposition of identification marks on the sides of recreational craft as a condition for their operation in
the lagoon of Venice does not require the modification of the design or construction of craft conforming
with the Directive and therefore respects the conditions of Article 2(2) of the Directive.

(1) Directive 94/25/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1996 on the approximation of

laws,

regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to recreational craft.

(2004/C 78 E/0995)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0207/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Subject: Further action by the Commission on the portability of supplementary pension rights

On 12 June 2002, the Commission initiated the first-stage consultation of social partners on the portability
of supplementary pension rights, which identified the following problems: conditions governing the
acquisition of occupational pension rights, the preservation of acquired rights, the transferability of rights,
rights to information and the taxation of cross-border benefits.

Unfortunately, the second-stage consultation of social partners on measures to improve the portability of
occupational pension rights, which was launched on 15 September 2003, did not produce any results
either.

The Commission invited the social partners to inform it, where appropriate, of their resolve to undertake
negotiations and whether they wish to adopt a global approach or concentrate on certain aspects of
portability. The ETUC stated at a meeting of its Executive Committee on 16/17 October 2003 that it was
prepared to undertake negotiations with its European partners. On 19 November 2003, the UNICE
rejected the Commission’s proposals and made it clear that it was not willing to negotiate on the issues
proposed by the Commission (1).

What further action does the Commission intend to take on this issue, which is of relevance to all workers
who have had jobs in several Member States during their working life?

Will a proposal for a directive be drafted or will the matter be shelved?

(1) UNICE, 19.11.2003.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2004)

The Commission regrets that the social partners will not hold negotiations with a view to limiting the loss
of supplementary pension rights as a result of occupational mobility within the same country or different
countries. In the Member States the social partners have the possibility of adapting the rules of their
supplementary schemes so as to provide better protection for the rights of persons who change jobs and
hence supplementary pension schemes. However, the social partners do not necessarily make use of this
possibility, and the Member States in which supplementary schemes are the most common have
introduced minimum requirements in order to protect workers who change jobs. These requirements
cover the eligibility conditions for schemes, qualifying periods, revaluing of dormant rights (rights of
persons who have left a scheme but not yet reached retirement age) and procedures for the transfer of
rights.