52000PC0475

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine pollution AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

1. Introduction

Article 251(2)(c) of the EC Treaty lays down that the Commission shall deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission sets out its opinion below on the 16 amendments proposed by Parliament.

2. Background

a) On 16 December 1998, the Commission forwarded to the Council and to the European Parliament its proposal for a Decision (COM(1998)769 -1998/0350/COD).

b) The Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on 28 April 1999.

c) The Committee of the Regions informed the Council that it would not express an opinion on the proposal.

d) The European Parliament approved the Commission proposal on 16th September 1999, in first reading, subject to 29 amendments.

e) On 30 November 1999, the Commission adopted, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the Treaty, an amended proposal for a decision incorporating wholly, in part or in principle 20 of the 29 amendments proposed by Parliament (COM (1999) 641).

f) The Council adopted its common position on 17th December 1999.

g) On 13th June 2000, the Parliament European adopted at second reading a favourable resolution including 16 amendments to the common position.

3. Purpose of the proposal

Based on Article 175 (1) of the Treaty, the proposed Decision has the objective of bringing together and consolidating the different actions carried out at Community level in the field of accidental marine pollution during the last 20 years under a single solid legal basis, and to extend it to operational spills. It includes a continued Community action programme starting from 1 January 2000.

4. Opinion of the Commission on the amendments by the European Parliament

4.1. Amendments retained by the Commission

*Amendments 16 and 22 are retained by the Commission. amendment 16 usefully refers to habitat protection bodies, which play an important role in the proposed framework. amendment 22 introduces a reference to the application of the Polluter Pays Principle in the text rather than in a recital. It is acceptable because this corresponds to the position taken by the Commission at 1st reading.

*Certain other amendments, namely amendments 24 and 25 can be accepted in part in as much as they further clarify the scope of the proposal. The Commission accepts the part of amendment 24 which, with regard to the concerned substances, refers to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, and the part of amendment 25 defining "accidental marine pollution". Concerning amendment 24, the proposed change should be introduced in the body of the text rather than in a recital, in accordance with point number 10 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation.

4.2. Amendments not accepted by the Commission

*Amendment 1 introduces a reference to existing international conventions for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the North-east Atlantic. The Commission considers that, in Recital 2, the Council retained the Parliament's desire to refer to existing regional agreements on accidental marine pollution. In the light of the above, the Commission cannot support this amendment.

*Amendment 3 refers, under a new recital, to the need for an appropriate linguistic regime. Although this was part of the text initially proposed by the Commission, it was modified in Council and accepted by the Commission for the sake of simplification.

*Amendment 4 refers, under a new recital, to the proposal for a directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Since the European Parliament and the Council have not yet adopted this proposal, such a recital cannot be included.

*Amendment 7 refers, under a new recital, to the POP UN protocol covering hormone-mimicking substances. Such a reference to an instrument dealing with chronic air pollution is not relevant considering the scope of the proposed framework.

*Amendment 8 refers, under a new recital, to pollution from operational spills. Such a reference is not necessary, such spills being already covered by deliberate pollution.

*Amendment 11 refers, under Article 1.2.c., to the "polluter pays principle" (PPP) and calls on Member States to co-operate to ensure that the principle of economic responsibility is applied and that fines imposed at administrative level in the affected coastal state are recognized. Although the Council failed to follow the Parliament regarding the inclusion of a reference to the PPP in the text of the Decision, it agreed on a recital (13) that usefully refers to this principle. The second part goes far beyond the scope of the proposed framework for co-operation.

*Amendment 13 restores the text of the Commission proposal. This text was modified in Council for the sake of simplification and coherence.

*Amendment 15 refers, under Article 3.2.b, to port authorities. The Commission considers that the text of the common position, under Art. 3.2. a., offers a quite reasonable answer to the need to associate Port authorities to the actions to be undertaken.

*Amendment 19 is of a purely editorial nature. It was directly linked to amendment 17 on comitology, which has been rejected. Therefore, it is no longer acceptable.

*Amendment 23 introduces, under a new recital, a definition of accidental marine pollution, consistent with the second part of amendment 25. However, this would go against the Interinstitutional Agreement of 22 December 1998 on common guidelines for the quality of drafting of Community legislation. Especially its point number 10, which provides that: "The purpose of the recitals is to set out concise reasons for the chief provisions of the enacting terms, without reproducing or paraphrasing them. They shall not contain normative provisions [...]"

*Part of amendment 24 introduces, under a new recital, a specific reference to "all radioactive substances". Existing international conventions for the protection of the Mediterranean Sea, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, to which the Community is contracting party, have all adopted the same approach, namely not to mention any specific substances. Moreover, the introduction of such an explicit reference would lead to a complex legal situation because of the relation with the Euratom Treaty.

*Several amendments (26 and 27, as well as parts of 24 and 25) come back to the question of dumped munitions in relation to which the Commission supported the Parliament at 1st reading. On this important problem, the Commission considers that the text of the common position offers a reasonable solution. In Council, several delegations were not prepared to accept more than a recital. It is only because of the Commission's insistence that, at the last minute, a reference was inserted under Article 1 (2) b) of the common position.

5. Conclusion

Under the terms of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal according to the above.