WRITTEN QUESTION P-2440/99 by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Closure of Barsebäck nuclear power plant by Swedish Government.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, environmental impact, impact study, indemnification, nuclear power station, private sector, restriction on competition

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/163

4. What countermeasures by EU Member States will the Commission allow in order to implement the
reciprocity clause?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The Commission regrets the postponement of the adoption of the bill on the modernisation and
1.
the public electricity service, which was designed to transpose into French law
development of
Directive 92/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 (1) concerning common
rules for the internal market in electricity and to guarantee the right of the electricity producers of the
other Member States to supply potentially eligible French consumers and the right of French consumers to
freedom of choice of supplier.

2.
Following the failure of the Joint Committee of the French Senate and National Assembly of
18 November 1999, on 24 November 1999 the Commission sent France a letter formally requiring it to
submit its comments within 15 days and on 23 December 1999 it sent France a reasoned opinion
pursuant to Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

On 2 December 1999, the French Energy Minister (SecrØtaire d(cid:146)Etat) informed the Council meeting on
energy that the French Government had taken steps to ensure that the bill is adopted in February 2000.

Following an initiative from ElectricitØ de France and in agreement with the French Government,
3.
industrial consumers that use more than 100 GWh (i.e. 22 % of the market) benefit from access to the
network on the basis of public tariffs for the transmission of any electricity purchased from suppliers in
other Member States.

4.
It is up to the Member States to take the decision to apply the balance clause of Article 19(5) of
Directive 96/92/EC. The Commission will ensure that it is correctly applied and, in particular, that the
market of the Member States concerned remains open to all potential suppliers for eligible consumers that
use more than 100 GWh.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2000/C 219 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2440/99

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Closure of Barseb(cid:228)ck nuclear power plant by Swedish Government

The Swedish Government has decided to close down by the end of November 1999 one of the country(cid:146)s
twelve nuclear reactors at the Barseb(cid:228)ck nuclear power station close to Copenhagen. The reactor is one of
the two privately owned power plants, the other ten are owned by the Swedish Government, through the
State Power Board. The Government has not undertaken an environmental impact assessment as to the
consequences of the closure of the reactor nor has it made any commitment for compensation to the
owners and employees.

The situation gives rise to important questions, which the European Commission should address as a
matter of urgency in view of the planned closure date:

1.

2.

From a competition aspect, can the Commission state whether the Swedish Government(cid:146)s decision to
close one of the two privately owned rectors and not one of the ten state-owned plants, is a distortion
of EU legislation?

Is the Commission satisfied that a full Environmental Impact Assessment has been correctly applied in
this case and, if not, should not the closure date be cancelled immediately.

3. Why has the European Commission not already taken measures in this case when the Swedish
Supreme Administrative Court, the final court of appeal, upheld the Government(cid:146)s decision but failed
to request a preliminary ruling from the European Court of Justice?

C 219 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2000)

The definitive closure of one of Sydkraft(cid:146)s nuclear reactors at Barseb(cid:228)ck on 30 November 1999 could have
led to distortion of competition on the market concerned. However, following an agreement between the
owner and the Swedish Government on compensation, the Commission understands that the owner of the
plant will no longer pursue any legal challenges to the Swedish Government(cid:146)s decision from the moment
the agreement enters into force when approved by Parliament in the spring of 2000.

The Commission is currently examining the consequences which the closure of the nuclear reactor may
have under Community environmental legislation.

As regards the procedural aspects related to the request for a preliminary ruling of the Court of justice,
contacts have already been made by the Commission with the Swedish authorities.

(2000/C 219 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2441/99

by Marco Pannella (TDI) to the Council

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Chemical, biological and radiological attacks on the Kurds in Iraq

During the campaign against the Kurds in 1988, which has been defined as genocidal and in which tens of
thousands of people were killed or disappeared, the Iraqi regime bombed more than 200 villages in
northern Iraq.
its kind ever carried out against civilian
populations (cid:129) enormous quantities of chemical and probably biological and radiological weapons were
used. These contaminated the environment, including aquifers, in northern Iraq, whose rivers pass through
the whole country and flow into the Persian Gulf.

In this operation (cid:129) the largest assault of

In view of the reports concerning the high incidence of cancers and congenital malformations in children
in Iraq, what steps has the High Representative for the CFSP taken or does he intend to take to ensure that
the appropriate international organisations at long last study the condition of the water reserves to
determine whether chemical, biological or radiological agents or derivatives from them are continuing to
poison the population?

In the same context, what steps has the High Representative for the CFSP taken or does he intend to take
to ensure that, after a delay of eleven years, the appropriate international organisations begin to concern
themselves with the medical treatment of the survivors and to investigate what substances Saddam
Hussein(cid:146)s regime used and whether they continue to present risks to the population?

Likewise in this light, can the High Representative for the CFSP indicate what steps he has taken or intends
to take to study and assess the effects of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction on
agriculture in northern Iraq, including on livestock farming, forests and fisheries, as well as the impact on
fauna and flora?

The Halabja Post Graduate Medical Institute (HMI), which was set up in the Kurdish region of Iraq
in August 1999 to develop treatments and promote programmes of research on survivors of chemical
attacks, faces numerous material and technical problems which could prevent it from attaining the
objectives it has set itself.

Can the High Representative for the CFSP indicate whether he intends to send a delegation of experts to
visit the HMI centre and see with their own eyes the specific medical requirements of the survivors of
chemical, biological and radiological attacks and to assess the needs of the HMI in general?