WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/00 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Pollution of the River Segura (Murcia-Spain).
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, European Regional Development Fund, Region of Murcia, environmental policy, pollution of waterways, prevention of pollution, water management, water treatment

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/57

1. Why was the word (cid:145)3,4 methylenedioxyphenyl propan-2-one(cid:146) replaced with the word (cid:145)3,4 (methyle-
nedioxy) phenylpropane(cid:146) in Annex I to Commission Directive 93/46/EEC of 22 June 1993?

Is it true that, as a result of the abovementioned amendment, PMK is no longer included on the list

2.
of prohibited substances and hence has in fact been legalised since 22 June 1993?

If so, does this mean that production of and trafficking in PMK, and hence also XTC, has not been a

3.
punishable offence since 22 June 1993?

Could this mean that, in many cases, there will be no legal basis for prosecution, which will result in
the

4.
the termination of pre-trial detention and, possibly,
authorities?

in claims for damages being filed against

5.

Could it also mean that many of those who are serving prison sentences were wrongly convicted?

6. What action does the Council
situation?

(1) OJ L 159, 1.7.1993, p. 134.
(2) OJ L 370, 19.12.1992, p. 76.

intend to take to remedy this unintended but potentially serious

Reply

(30 November 2000)

1.
The object of Council Directive 92/109/EEC of December 1992 on the manufacture and placing on
the market of certain substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances was to establish intra-Community monitoring of certain substances frequently used for the
illicit manufacture of such substances. The Annexes to that Directive are amended or replaced by means of
a regulatory procedure laid down in Article 10 of Directive 92/109/EEC.

2.
Commission Directive 93/46/EEC of 22 June 1993 replacing and modifying those Annexes was
adopted under such a procedure. It would appear from the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question that the Dutch
version of that Directive contains an error. The Honourable Member is reminded that if that is the case it
is up to the Commission to request publication of a corrigendum in the Official Journal of the European
Communities. Until such time as the Commission introduced such a corrigendum, the substance is a
scheduled substance and its illicit use monitored within the meaning of Directive 92/109/EEC.

The Council invites the Honourable Member to approach the Commission directly for clarification of

3.
this matter.

The Council has no information regarding the convictions to which the Honourable Member refers

4.
and would remind him that any criminal proceedings are a matter of national jurisdiction.

(2001/C 113 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2026/00

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

Subject: Pollution of the River Segura (Murcia-Spain)

(21 June 2000)

Pollution of the river Segura (Murcia-Spain) affects the populations of Murcia, Orihuela, the Vega Media
and the Vega Baja in the Murcia region and Alicante in the Valencian Autonomous Community; it is a
serious problem, and one that is being solved only very slowly by the relevant authorities.

C 113 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

In February this year the installation and operation of purification plants for waste from Las Pedan(cid:237)as de
Baæos y Mendigo, La Murta, Lobosillo, La Tercia, Gea y Truyols y Cabezo de la Plata was approved, with
funding from the ERDF, in order to remove part of this major problem, but such measures have proved
inadequate in the past.

Does the Commission not believe that it should demand, as a matter of urgency, that the local authorities
concerned find immediate, all-embracing solutions which meet European Union stipulations regarding the
right of citizens to a healthy environment?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

In its Communication setting out the guidelines for Structural Fund programmes in the period 2000-
2006 (1),
including the collection,
treatment and discharge of urban waste water. Special attention is paid to the location of discharge points
and the impact of discharges on the environment.

the Commission stresses the importance of water management,

The Commission is currently in the final stages of its negotiations with the Spanish authorities on the new
Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Spain. It will carefully examine the authorities(cid:146)
proposals for all Spanish regions,
in the light of the priorities indicated in these
guidelines.

including Murcia,

From the information supplied so far, it has not been possible to establish whether Council Directive 76/
464/EEC on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged to the aquatic environment of
the Community (2) and the relevant Directives (3) apply in this case. In principle, discharges of List I
substances have to be authorised and relevant List II substances have to be identified by the national
authorities. For relevant List II substances, the Member States are required to draw up pollution reduction
programmes, including the setting of quality objectives for rivers.

(1) OJ C 267, 22.9.1999.
(2) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.
(3) Directive 82/176/EEC, OJ L 81, 27.3.1982.Directive 83/513/EEC, OJ L 291, 24.10.1983. Directive 84/156/EEC,
OJ L 74, 17.3.1984. Directive 84/491/EEC, OJ L 274, 17.10.1984. Directive 86/280/EEC, OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.

(2001/C 113 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2042/00

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: EU-Greenland fisheries agreement

Despite having fished cod and redfish in Greenland(cid:146)s waters since the 1930s, Portugal was no longer
allowed to fish in those waters after it joined the EU in 1986: the Union had concluded a fisheries
agreement with Greenland the previous year, and the terms of this agreement were not altered to take
account of Portugal(cid:146)s requirements.

Under this agreement, 130 000 tonnes are attributed to the EU in return for a payment from the
Community budget of approximately PTE 8 billion each year.

However, of this total 120 000 tonnes are allocated to a single Member State, Germany, which does not
have the capacity for full take-up. Consequently, the average take-up rate for the fisheries agreement with
Greenland has been 12 %, notwithstanding its very substantial costs to the Community coffers.