WRITTEN QUESTION E-3221/98

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 October 1998)

Subject: Sewage treatment plant in Cieza (Murcia, Spain)

The surface impoundment sewage treatment plant in Cieza, financed by the Community, has not worked properly for the last four years so that sewage is being pumped directly into the Segura river, which flows through the town of Cieza, emitting unbearable and insalubrious smells to which the citizens of the town are exposed. The citizens concerned have requested urgent measures to eliminate the "pestilent odours" generated by the sewage treatment plant. They base their complaint on a judgement by the Court in Strasbourg in which the Spanish Government was told to pay compensation to a city in Murcia in connection with a similar problem, referring to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Moreover, it has been noted that the problem of unpleasant smells is encountered wherever there is a sewage treatment plant of this type.

1. Is the Commission aware of this problem?

2. Does the Commission not consider that the competent authorities should carry out an assessment of the real functioning of the sewage treatment plant in that town and draw up a plan for the complete overhaul of the plant in order to eliminate all the shortcomings detected?

3. In what manner can the Commission intercede before the Spanish authorities in order to guarantee compliance with Community legislation on the environment and, in particular, the following directives:

(a) Directive 85/337/EEC(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment,

(b) Directive 91/156/EEC(2) on waste and

(c) Directive 90/313/EEC(3) on the freedom of access to information on the environment?

4. Can the Commission provide all the information which it is able to obtain from the Spanish authorities with regard to this case?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

1. The Commission was unaware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

2. Under Council Directive 91/271/EEC(4) of 21 May 1991 on the treatment of urban waste waters, and in order to assist in its implementation, the Community has funded the building of water reclamation works in Spain. Nevertheless it is for the Spanish authorities to ensure that the facilities in question are managed and function properly.

3. The Commission does not know whether the water reclamation works in question has been subjected to the environmental impact assessment provided for by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the impact of certain public and private projects on the environment. It should nevertheless be pointed out that Article 2 of that directive provides that projects that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, more particularly as a result of their nature, extent or location, must be subjected to an assessment of their impact before any authorisation is granted. That requirement applies to the projects listed in Annexes I and II to the directive. Item 11(d) of Annex II mentions WRWs. Under Article 4(2) of the directive projects covered by one of the categories listed in Annex II must be assessed in terms of their impact if the Member State concerned feels that their characteristics so require. Since this is a facility that has already been in operation for four years no ex post facto impact assessment can be required under the directive.

On the basis of the information supplied by the Honourable Member the Commission feels that Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, does not apply in this instance since Article 2 thereof excludes waste water from its scope where this is covered by other legislation. However waste waters are regulated by the Directive 91/271/EEC referred to above.

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment requires public authorities to make available information relating to the environment to any (natural or legal) person, at his request, and without his having to prove an interest. The Commission is unable, solely on the basis of the facts mentioned by the Honourable Member, to establish whether the Spanish authorities have received a request for access to information to which they responded in an inappropriate manner.

4. The Commission would point out that, contrary to what was stated in the question, the Cieza water reclamation works was not jointly financed via Community funds. Conversely, the project covering the geotechnical examination of the site of the WRW and the analysis of the liquid effluents discharged there with a view to extending said WRW was indeed jointly financed in 1997 under the operational programme for the Murcia region (1994-99).

The Commission will send the Honourable Member and the Secretariat General of Parliament the information on that water reclamation work that it has received form the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

(4) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991, p. 40.