WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol.
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, derogation from EU law, lead-free petrol

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/113

Does this statement reflect the views of the Commission? Could the Commission state whether any citizens
of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU?

If the answer to this question is yes, could the Commission explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied
(on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Commission justify the decision
to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way?

Could the Commission explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU
relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus,
contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the
overwhelming majority of the international community?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 May 2000)

The European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 concluded that (cid:145)(cid:133) a political settlement will
facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. If no settlement has been reached by the
completion of accession negotiations, the Council(cid:146)s decision on accession will be made without the above
being a precondition. In this the Council will take account of all the relevant factors.(cid:146)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the result of the de facto division of the island into two strictly
separated parts is that the fundamental freedoms laid down by the Treaties and in particular freedom of
movement of goods, people, services and capital, right of establishment and the universally recognised
political, economic, social and cultural rights cannot today be exercised over the entirety of the island(cid:146)s
territory. These freedoms and rights would have to be guaranteed as part of a comprehensive settlement
restoring constitutional arrangements covering the whole of the Republic of Cyprus.

Without prejudice to a case by case appraisal of requests for transitional measures, the Commission takes
the view that transitional arrangements can be negotiated provided that they are necessary, appropriate
and do not put into question the acceptance of the acquis communautaire by the new Member States. In
some cases they must be accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for the application of the
acquis including investments.

The Commission considers that the enlargement negotiations and the attempts currently being made in the
United Nations to find a political solution to the Cyprus problem are mutually reinforcing processes
between which coherence should be assured. While a political solution to the Cyprus question is not a pre-
condition for accession,
it is the objective of the Union that a united Cyprus joins the Union. The
Commission recalls the invitation of the Cypriot government to the Turkish Cypriots to take part in the
accession process.

(2001/C 46 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol

(4 April 2000)

The fuels directive which came into effect in October 1998 lays down strict limits for the sulphur content
of both petrol and diesel motor fuels. In that directive it was also decided to abandon the use of leaded
petrol. The time limit for the use of leaded petrol expired at the end of last year, but France, Spain, Italy,
Portugal and Greece were granted an extension for the use of leaded and high-sulphur fuels.

C 46 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is
widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives?

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

(5 June 2000)

The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded
petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of
the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer
uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this
could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation
periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers
accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to
unleaded petrol.

(2001/C 46 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia)

the statement

thereon by the Directorate-General

The initial phase of the project to canalise a 42-kilometre stretch of gullies in the network of water courses
in the Chiva ravine has recently been given the go-ahead. The project in question involves making the
river bed wider and deeper, diverting its course and undertaking various resurfacing operations, as well as
connecting tributary gullies to the main river bed. Although the authorities did indeed approve the
for Environmental
mandatory impact assessment,
Quality, dated 15 March, contained a three-page annex setting out as yet undisclosed conditions which
the project was supposed to satisfy. Various associations and bodies, including the Spanish Association of
Limnology, Agro-Environmental Action, SEO-Birdlife and the Platform for a Green Ravine, have warned of
the grave impact that such a project would have on the river and lakeside ecosystems concerned. Besides
it would destroy
spoiling the landscape, the project would have a number of effects. For instance,
completely and irrevocably the plant life which currently colonises the river bed and its banks, as well as
the plant species (mates) which line the area where the river flows into the lake, thus wiping out the
natural habitats they provide for an array of protected species, bird life in particular. In addition, it would
disturb the toxic substances which have settled on the river bed and lead to a build-up of sediment as the
water began to circulate more quickly and a larger area of the basin was drained. That sediment would
then be deposited in the La Albufera lake, thus inevitably serving to speed up the silting-up of the lake,
which enjoys the highest protection afforded by the regulations governing the Nature Park in question.

Furthermore, should this situation occur, the project to canalise the ravines would contravene several
national and regional laws and also constitute a breach of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of
wild birds (under which La Albufera is designated a special bird protection area) and Directive 92/43/
EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (under which Spain included the
Nature Park as a protected area in Natura 2000 network).

Could the Commission outline the current state of play as regards petitions 99/4494, SG(99), A/7586 and
99/4430, SG(99), A/6253, filed by environmental organisations from Valencia?

To its knowledge, is the project in question receiving Community funding?

Does it
Community legislation?

intend to initiate infringement proceedings for failure to comply with the aforementioned