2. DoestheCommissionacceptsomeoftheresponsibilityforthefactthat,followingitstransfertothe
armed forces, the European Union-funded EKAB helicopter fleet will no longer be governed by thestringentJAAsafetyrulesand,inparticular,JARCode145ontechnicalbackupforaircraftandJAROPS-1andJAROPS-3whichlaydownstringentstandardsregardingaircraftandhelicopters,theirequipment,thesafetyandflightexperienceofaircrewsandJAAlicensing,sinceitisspecificallystatedthattheserulesarebindingonemergencyairambulanceservicesbutnotonflightsbyaircraftbelongingtothearmedforces?
3. HastheCommissioninvestigatedthewayinwhichCommunityfundsarebeingusedfortheair
ambulancefleetinGreece,thereasonsfortheaccidentsinvolvingtheA109PowerAgustahelicopterandways of preventing this from occurring again in the future? Has it also lookedinto the decision topurchasetwoPiaggioaircraftsubsequentlyrevealedtobeunsuitable,leadingtocancellationoftheorder?
4. WhatrepresentationswilltheCommissionmaketotheGreekGovernmentwithaviewtoensuring
thatemergencyairrescueservicesremaininthecivilaviationsector,ratherthantheairforce,asisthecasein all other Member States of the European Union, so as to guarantee full compliance with JAAspecifications?
AnswergivenbyMrsdePalacioonbehalfoftheCommission
(23July2003)
1. ThehelicoptercrewsandotheroperationalcostsoftheGreekNationalFirstAidCentre(EKAB)have
neverbeenfinancedundertheEuropeanUnion’sCommunitySupportFrameworkforGreece.
2. The Commission does not bear any responsibility for the operational safety of these aircraft.
TheGreekauthorities’decisiontotransfertheoperationofemergencyairrescueservicestothearmedforcesmeansthattheiroperationisnotcoveredbyJAArequirements.Furthermore,theprovisionsofJAR
OPS1and3havenotbeentransposedintoCommunitylaw.
3. TheHonourableMemberisreferredtotheCommission’sanswertoPriorityQuestionNoP-546/03
fromMrXarchakos(
1).
4. TheCommissiondoesnothavethepowertomakerepresentationstoaMemberStateaboutthecivil
ormilitarynatureofthebodyresponsibleforitsemergencyairrescueservices.Theseservicesarecoveredby Community rules on freedom of movement of services, freedom of access to the market and
competition.Therefore,measurestoexcludeortoprohibitactivitiesbyserviceprovidersmayonlybe
takeniftheywillguaranteethattheirintendedobjectivewillbeachieved,buttheymaynotgobeyondwhatisnecessaryforthatobjectivetobeattained.Itmustbeimpossibletoachievethesameresultbyimposinglessrestrictiverules.Furthermore,suchmeasuresmustbejustifiedbyoverridingpublic-interestrequirementsandnotbyeconomicfactorsandmustbeinproportiontotheaimspursued.
(1) OJC192E,14.8.2003,p.199.
(2004/C58E/116) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1823/03
byMonicaFrassoni(Verts/ALE)totheCommission
(2June2003)
Subject:Failure tocarry outa ‘preliminary inspection’ in respect ofthe entire CostaDoradaproperty
complexonthecoastbetweenMalfatanoandCapoSpartivento,Teulada(Cagliari),Sardinia,Italy
Along the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento (Teulada district, Sardinia), five holiday/
residentialdevelopments(apartmentblocks,hotels,holidayhomes,serviceunits,golfcourses,andsoon)havebeenapproved(
1).Theylieadjacenttooneanotherandtheyformpartofasingle189000m3
complex, the plans for which have been submitted by the SITAS SpA company. The environmentalassociationsAmicidellaTerraandGruppod’interventogiuridicohaveonanumberofoccasionsaskedtheC58E/100 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
appropriateadministrativeauthoritiesatCommunity,national,regionalandlocalleveltocarryoutthe
environmentalimpactassessmentprocedure(2),sincetheareainquestionisoneofthefewremaining
unspoiltbroadMediterraneancoastalstrips.Theareaisprotectedasalandscape(3)andpartofitenjoys
comprehensiveprotection(4).Italsocontainsarchaeologicalsitesdatingfromthenuraghicperiodanditis
duetobedesignatedasaprotectedmarinearea(5).Individualsectionsofthebuildingprojecthavebeen
subjected tothree ‘preliminary inspection’procedures, under which three ofthe five site-developmentplanssubmittedhave beenexcludedfromthesubsequentenvironmentalimpactassessmentprocedure(Decisions2204/VIIIof18September2002and2218/VIIIof19September2002takenbytheDirectorofthe SIVEA Department, Regional Environmental Protection Council), whilst only one site has beensubjectedtotheenvironmentalimpactassessmentprocedure(Decision2204/VIIIof18September2002takenbytheDirectoroftheSIVEADepartment,RegionalEnvironmentalProtectionCouncil),inblatantviolation of Community and Italian laws which stipulate that a comprehensive assessment must beundertaken in respect of the proposed building project (see European Court of Justice ruling of
16September1999inCase435/97andtheLazioregionaladministrativecourt’sdecisionNo1456of
16December2002).
Inviewoftheabove,wouldtheCommissionanswerthefollowingquestions?
1. Isitawareofthesituationdescribedabove?
2. Aretherecurrently(orwilltherebeinfuture)anyprojects(suchasroads,watermainsorsewage
systems)financedbytheCommunity(e.g.underthe2000-2006SardiniaRGP)forthebenefitofbuildingprojectsintheMalfatano-CapoSpartiventoarea?
3. IstheCommissionintendingtotakeanyactioninrespectofthisseriouscaseinvolvingincorrect
applicationofDirectives97/11/EC(
6)and85/337/EEC(7)?
(1) ProceedingsoftheTeuladaMunicipalCouncilnos9,10,11,12and13of21March2001.
(2) Directive 97/11/EC (Annex II, paragraph 12c) amending and incorporating the previous directive 85/337/EEC
(AnnexII,paragraph11a),theDPRof12April1996(Articles5and10;AnnexB,paragraph8a)andSardinianregionallaw1/1999(Article31),asamendedbyandincorporatedintoSardinianregionallaw17/2000(Article17).
(
3) LawdecreeNo490/1999,Articles139and140andArticle146(1)(a),(g)and(m).
(4) RegionallawNo23/1993,Article2(1)(a).
(5) TheCapoSpartivento-CapoTeuladaprotectedmarineareawithinthemeaningofLawno394/1991.
(6) OJL73,4.3.1997,p.5.
(7) OJL175,15.7.1985,p.40.
AnswergivenbyMrsWallströmonbehalfoftheCommission
(16July2003)
TheCommissionhasalreadymadeaninquiryontheissueraisedinthiswrittenquestion.However,ithad
neverappearedthattheprojectsmentionedbytheHonourableMemberlieadjacenttooneanotherand
thattheyformpartofasingle189000cubicmeter(m3)complex.Therefore,theissueofthesplittingofa
singleprojecthadneverbeenassessed.
MemberStatesareobligedtoensurethattheobjectiveofCouncilDirective85/337/EECof27June1985
ontheassessmentoftheeffectsofcertainpublicandprivateprojectsontheenvironment,beforeorafteramendmentsbyCouncilDirective97/11/ECof3March1997,isnotcircumventedbythesplittingofprojects.NottakingaccountofthecumulativeeffectofsplitprojectsinthedeterminationadoptedunderArticle4,paragraph2,ofDirective85/337/EECasamended,meansthatprojectsthat,takentogether,arelikelytohavesignificanteffectsontheenvironmentwithinthemeaningofArticle2(1)oftheDirectivemayescapetheobligationtocarryoutanassessment.
On11June2003,theCommissionaskedtheItalianregionalauthoritiestoverifytheexistenceofany
co-fundingunderthe2000-2006SardiniaRGP,butithasnotreceivedanyreplyforthemoment.
TheCommissionwilltaketheappropriatestepsinordertogatherdetailedinformationontheissueraised
by the Honourable Member and to ensure, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, thecompliancewithCommunitylaw.ShouldtheCommissioncometotheconclusionthatCommunitylawisbeingbreachedinthisspecificcase,itwillnothesitate,astheguardianoftheECTreaty,totakeallnecessarymeasures,includinginfringementproceedingsunderArticle226oftheECTreaty,inordertoensurecompliancewithrelevantCommunitylaw.6.3.2004EN C58E/101 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion