WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Erika disaster and environmental liability.
C 53 E/30 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (26 May 2000) The Commission cannot say at this stage whether a funding request for the project in question will form part of the new 2000-2006 programme under Council Regulation No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) or Council Regulation No 1164/1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (2). The projects to be put forward for Structural Fund financing will be determined once the current procedure for adopting the operational programmes has been completed. The Commission would point out that Article 2 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3) stipulates that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location must be made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects before authorisation is granted. This provision applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the Directive. As for the installations mentioned by the Honourable Member, Annex II(10)(e) refers to canalisation and flood-relief works, and Article 4(2) of the Directive stipulates that projects of the classes listed in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. Moreover, the Commission recently received a complaint on this same subject, and is currently examining the dossier. As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission will in any event take the necessary steps to ensure that Community law is observed in this instance. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2) OJ L 130, 25. 5. 1994. (3) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2001/C 53 E/034) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0842/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (21 March 2000) Subject: Erikaí disaster and environmental liability In the parliamentary debate of 2 March 2000 on the oral question Erikaí, I asked the Commissioner Fischler to respond to two questions: 1. What was his assessment of the likelihood of securing compensation from the owners of both the ship and its cargo, in accord with the call previously made by Parliament? 2. Whether the Commissionís proposals for a directive on environmental liability would embrace maritime incidents of this kind, ensuring in future that the polluter-pays principle can be firmly applied? The Commissioner answered neither of these questions. Will the Commission please do so now? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 May 2000) 1. Compensation for victims of the Erikaí accident is governed by two international conventions; the liability for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 1969 International Convention on civil Protocol thereto and the 1971 Convention on an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage, as amended by the 1992 Protocol thereto. These conventions ensure that victims can receive compensation without having to prove fault or negligence of the shipowner and without having to rely on the solvency of the owner (since there is compulsory insurance for tanker owners). Compensation will therefore be available but it is limited to certain maximum amounts. For the shipowner the maximum 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?