WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2469/98 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Port State Control Directive
C 96/100 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 4. 1999 It would point out that, at a general level, Article 92(2)(b) of the EC Treaty provides that áaid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrencesí is compatible with the common market. Under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty, the Commission monitors the compatibility of systems of aid existing in the Member States. As far as horizontal Community legislation is concerned, the Council would point out that it does not fund losses in production occasioned by bad weather. Nevertheless, Article 5(h) of Regulation (EEC) 4256/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (1), stipulates that the latter may provide financial assistance for restoring agricultural and forestry production potential damaged by natural disasters. The Council would further draw the Honourable Memberís attention to certain provisions laid down in the fruit and vegetables sector by Commission Regulation (EC) 411/97 of 3 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of the basic regulation on fruit and vegetables as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance (2). Under Article 2(5) of that Regulation, in the case of a natural disaster recorded by the competent national authorities, the last three production years › rather than just the last preceding year stipulated as the general rule › are taken into account to calculate the value of the production marketed by a producer organisation which has submitted an operational programme. The purpose of this is to minimise the impact of a poor harvest on the determination of the ceilings on financial assistance set by the Commission, and thus avoid compromising the implementation of the operational programme in question. Finally, Portugal has referred the problem to the Commission which, within the scope of its powers and on the basis of the dossier submitted by the Portuguese authorities, is currently looking into the feasibility of implementing specific measures compatible with Community legislation. (1) OJ L 374, 31. 12. 1988, p. 25. (2) OJ L 63, 4. 3. 1997, p. 9; OJ L 202, 30. 7. 1997, p. 45. (1999/C 96/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2469/98 by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission (30 July 1998) Subject: Port State Control Directive Is the Commission satisfied that the Port State Control Directive can be satisfactorily enforced in the area under the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority, given that their recent Pilotage Direction No 5 significantly reduced the number of vessels boarded by port officials? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (14 September 1998) The Commission has no evidence to suggest that the reduction in boarding of vessels by pilots in the port of London will result in a significant reduction of Port State Control inspections. The decision by Port State Control officers to inspect a vessel is based on a large number of other criteria, particularly taking into account the ship inspection history, the shipís age and type and the performance of the Flag State in which it is registered. Moreover, the fact that in a given port of a Member State the number of Port State Control inspections diminishes does not automatically imply that there is a reduction in the number of vessels inspected at national level and it cannot be considered, in itself, to be a violation of Directive 95/21/EC (1). (1) OJ L 157, 7. 7. 1995