WRITTEN QUESTION P-2527/99 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Collapse of Attica Road Bridge.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, competence of the Member States, engineering structure, man-made disaster, public works

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/157

Given the particular weather conditions, and notably the very low temperatures which have forced the
Ukrainian government to put the nuclear reactor in question back on stream, and the failure of the
European Union and the G7 countries to provide economic assistance, will the Commission explain
EU policy on this issue after so many years and say whether any assessment has been made of the serious
risk facing European countries, and in particular the Balkans, from accidents at nuclear plants with records
like Chernobyl?

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

(21 January 2000)

The Commission shares the concern about the safety of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The incident
that took place in unit 3 on 1 December 1999, only four days after the unit had restarted operation,
highlighted the serious problems that affect the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Radioactive fall-out from
this plant could potentially affect the whole of Europe. In this respect the Balkan region cannot be singled
out.

The Commission(cid:146)s policy with regard to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has for several years been
based on the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed in 1995 between the government of Ukraine,
the governments of the group of seven most industrialised countries and the Commission. This formulates
a co-operative approach on the preparation and implementation of a comprehensive programme to
support the decision of Ukraine to close the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the year 2000. The
programme addresses power sector reform, energy investment, nuclear safety and a social impact plan.

Through the Tacis programme, the Community has provided substantial support in all these areas. This
includes support for the development of replacement electricity generation capacity, the development of a
decommissioning plan for units 1-3 and the construction of pre-decommissioning facilities at Chernobyl. It
should also be mentioned that the Community has made the largest contribution to the Chernobyl shelter
fund intended to transform the current shelter around unit 4 into an environmentally stable system.

The Commission takes the firm view that the only operating unit at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant
should be definitively closed in the course of the year 2000 as provided in the MoU. This will also enable
continued close co-operation with Ukraine in all the relevant areas. The progress of this co-operation is
dependent on the overall development of the Ukrainian economy.
In this context, the Commission
welcomes the confirmation by President Kuchma after his re-election that he is determined to progress
with the necessary economic reforms.

The Commission(cid:146)s commitment to increase nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe is also demon-
strated by the recent agreements concerning plant closures reached between the Commission and the
governments of Lithuania, Bulgaria and Slovakia. PHARE funds will be used to support the implementation
of these closure agreements.

(2000/C 225 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2527/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Collapse of Attica Road Bridge

The Commission(cid:146)s reply (1) to my question E-2176/98 (2) on quality control in respect of projects under-
taken as part of the Second CSF states: (cid:145)(cid:133) on the basis of Greek law 2372/96, a specialised undertaking
with an international reputation selected on the basis of a general competition has been charged with
carrying out spot checks on the basis of a range of samples of co-funded projects(cid:146).

C 225 E/158

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

In view of the collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, will the Commission say:

1. Which (cid:145)specialised undertakings(cid:146) with an international reputation have undertaken the supervision of

the Attica Road projects?

2. On the basis of which competition and on what grounds were the specific undertakings selected?

3. How many experts are employed to monitor the quality of the projects, who are they and what is the

evidence of their experience?

4. What is the cost of allocating the supervision of the Attica Road projects to the specific companies
concerned, and how does their remuneration compare with that of other undertakings which have
undertaken the supervision of the Egnatia Road projects, for instance?

5. Does the Commission consider that there has been any mismanagement or waste of Community and

national funds as regards the supervision of the Attica Road projects?

6.

Following the tragic collapse of the Attica Road Bridge, does it intend to impose sanctions, and if so,
what kind of sanctions on those responsible, so as to protect the reputation of its project?

7. Who,

in the its opinion, should assume responsibility for the deaths and injuries caused by the
collapse of the bridge and how will compensation be provided as a minimum form of recognition for
the victims or their families?

P-2120/98, OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 16.

(1)
(2) OJ C 96, 8.4.1999, p. 51.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

The Commission does not have the information required under items 1 to 4 of the question put by the
Honourable Member, which concern the contractual relations between the Greek state, the concession-
holding group and any subcontractors it engaged.

The Commission is not in a position to decide whether this accident demonstrates possible bad manage-
ment of the Community funds allocated to supervision of the construction of the bridge and work on Via
Attica, because it does not know the circumstances and the causes of the accident. If the Greek judicial
system established facts revealing a misuse of these funds, the Commission would then draw the requisite
conclusions and would consider any recovery of funds required.

The Commission regrets the deaths and casualties caused by this tragic accident. The allocation of
responsibility, penalties and compensation for the victims are matters for the Greek authorities.

(2000/C 225 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2532/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: European Year of languages and classical studies

(4 January 2000)

On 19 October 1999 the Commission accepted the proposal from Commissioner Reding to designate
2001 European Year of Languages. According to the Commissioner, the purpose of this proposal is to
protect Europe(cid:146)s languages, promote foreign language acquisition and to raise public awareness of the
issues involved. The programme of European Year of Languages covers the 11 official languages of the
European Union, Irish, Luxembourgish, languages which are recognised in Member States such as Catalan
and Basque and any languages which may be proposed by a Member State of the EU.