WRITTEN QUESTION E-0850/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Harmonisation of road signing and speed limits.
20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/31 compensation limit in this case is about € 13 million, due to the relatively small size of Erikaí. Further compensation is provided by the fund, which is financed jointly by the oil receiving companies, and compensates up to a total of € 185 million. If the compensation claims exceed that amount, all claims will be proportionately reduced. Whether this will happen in the Erikaí case is not yet known. The chances of full compensation of the Erikaí victims are greatly increased by the undertaking of Total-Fina and the French government to refrain from claiming their expenses until all other claimants have been paid. The white paper on environmental liability (1) refers to existing international liability regimes in 2. paragraph 4. 8. In general it notes that the relationship between the Community liability regime and international liability conventions has to be further clarified. In the case of oil pollution, it refers to a Commission communication on oil tanker safety (2), adopted by the Commission on 21 March 2000 which examines a number of potential measures to improve the existing oil pollution liability and compensation regime. A further communication, including more precise proposals on this issue, will be presented in the course of this year. (1) COM(2000) 66 final. (2) COM(2000) 142 final. (2001/C 53 E/035) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0850/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Harmonisation of road signing and speed limits Time and again Parliament has asked about the state of play on the harmonisation of road signing on the trans-European road network. This harmonisation, as proposed in the 1995-2000 Action Programme, will of course contribute to road safety in Europe. With regard to signing on other roads and the speed limits, the Commission doubtless adheres as strictly as possible to the subsidiarity principle. In this way the EU Member States and federal states can autonomously map out a road safety policy for their own local situation. 1. What proposals from the START report Infrastructure Committee ü Motorway Working group, have already been implemented? Model Signing Codeí, drawn up by the Transport 2. What proposals from the START report Infrastructure Committee ü Motorway Working Group, have not yet been implemented? Model Signing Codeí, drawn up by the Transport How soon will the as yet unimplemented measures in the above START report actually be carried 3. out? 4. Is the Commission considering additional measures for a further harmonisation of road signing on the trans-European road network? If so, what proposals are under discussion? If not, why is the Commission turning away from additional measures? 5. Is the Commission considering measures for a harmonisation of speed limits on the trans-European road network? If so, what proposals are under discussion? If not, why is the Commission renouncing a possible harmonisation of speed limits on the trans-European road network? 6. Is the Commission considering measures for a harmonisation of speed limits on other roads? If so, what proposals are under discussion? If not, why is the Commission renouncing a possible harmonisation of speed limits on other roads? C 53 E/32 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (25 May 2000) The Start Action Group, which met at the Commissionís prompting and whose activities were completed in 1994, was set up in order to assess any action enabling adequate levels of interoperability and service to be achieved within the trans-European road network (TERN). Against this background the group had made recommendations with regard to harmonising road signs. However the discussions within the Council during the first half of 1995, with France in the chair, showed that the Council did not consider those recommendations or any other equivalent or supplementary forms of action on the harmonisation of road signs to warrant priority treatment. Nevertheless the Commission intends to reexamine this matter when preparing a report on changes to the approach towards the Trans-European Transport Network (TETN). The report will be submitted to Parliament and the Council this summer. In 1998 the Commission had put forward a proposal for a directive (1) aimed at harmonising speeds, in this case the maximum speed of commercial vehicles in Europe. That proposal was not approved since it was impossible to bring the Member States to agree on the harmonised figures, on the classification of the roads to which the general limits applied and also since certain states invoked the principle of subsidiarity. In the meantime the adoption of Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 1992 on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community, (2) i. e. for heavy lorries weighing more than 12 tonnes and coaches and buses weighing more than 10 tonnes, provides an alternative solution to the introduction of common speed limits for heavy lorries in Europe. In its communication on road safety (3) of 17 March 2000 the Commission mentioned, as one of the priorities, extending the scope of that directive to lighter commercial vehicles. For those reasons the Commission intends to withdraw the formal proposal concerning the harmonisation of speed limits in accordance with the procedures in force. The Commission does not contemplate any new proposal in this area in the near future. (1) OJ C 33, 9. 2. 1989. (2) OJ L 57, 2. 3. 1992. (3) COM(2000) 125 final. (2001/C 53 E/036) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0858/00 by Carles-Alfred Gasòliba i Böhm (ELDR) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Dispute over trademark use The Commission is considering proposing the convening of a WTO panel with a view to settling a possible dispute with the US concerning an American law of 1998, namely Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriation Act. In fact, this proposal is linked to a dispute concerning the use of the trademark Havana Clubí, between a company owned 50 % by a French group and 50 % by the Cuban government, and another company which considers itself the legitimate owner of the trademark. What grounds does the Commission have for intervening in what is by its nature a private dispute? If the Commission does in the end propose that a WTO panel be convened, could this step be considered as implying that its intention to support the existing Cuban government? Is the Commission taking account of the fact that the Cuban government is making use of property and rights which have been expropriated without payment of the compensation which would be due under the rule of law?