WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Inspection of Kouroupitos waste disposal site in Greece

The Kouroupitos waste disposal site in Crete, concerning which Greece has already been condemned by the European Court of Justice, was recently visited by EU inspectors.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

- What were the findings of the inspectors?

- Has Greece taken suitable action to remedy matters, following the most recent ruling by the European Court of Justice and, if not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure full compliance with Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

In its judgement(1) of 4 July 2000 (second judgement under Article 228 of the EC Treaty) the European Court of Justice declared that Greece had failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste is disposed of in the area of Chania without endangering human health and without harming the environment in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste(2). In addition, Greece had failed to draw up for that area plans for the disposal of waste pursuant to Article 6 of Directive 75/442/EEC, and the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste pursuant to Article 12 of Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste(3). Accordingly, it had not implemented all the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91(4) (first judgement, under Article 226 of the EC Treaty) and had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

The Court ordered Greece to pay to the Commission, into the account designated EC own resources, a penalty payment. This penalty was set at EUR 20 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgement of 7 April 1992, from delivery of the second judgement until the first judgement had been complied with. The Commission sent periodically letters to the Greek authorities requesting the payment of the daily penalty of EUR 20 000 for the months of July 2000 (as from the 4th) to February 2001 inclusive. Greece has paid within the deadlines set. This represents a total of EUR 5 400 000 paid to the Commission by Greece.

By successive letters sent in July 2000, October 2000 and March 2001, the Greek authorities have communicated to the Commission information regarding the adoption of management plans for solid and dangerous waste in the district of Chania, the definitive closure of the illegal dump at Kouroupitos, the full functioning of the new provisional installation in Messomouri, and the timetable for the construction of a permanent waste landfill site and composting plant in Korakia. In order to verify technical and factual aspects of this information,

the Commission selected two independent experts, who after inspecting the site area in June 2001 produced a report accompanied by photographic evidence. In the light of the above, the Commission concluded that Greece had complied with the requirements of the Court judgement.

In April 2002, the Commission received a complaint in relation to the operation of the installation in Messomouri, the delay of the construction of the installations at Korakia and the non-rehabilitation of the Kouroupitos site. The Commission has raised the issue with the Greek authorities. The official reply of the Greek authorities is currently under examination with a view to assessing whether Greece has complied with Community environmental legislation.

In parallel, the Commission designated a group of independent experts, who visited the relevant sites in the Chania prefecture in February 2003. The final report of the experts is not yet available.

The Commission will not hesitate to take all requisite measures to ensure that Community environmental legislation has been respected.

(1) Judgement of 4 July 2000, C-387/97, ECR p.5047. We have to notice that Article 171 mentioned in the judgement has become Article 228.

(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(3) OJ L 84, 31.3.1978.

(4) Judgement of 7 April 1992, C-45/91, ECR p.2509.