WRITTEN QUESTION P-2518/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Urban parking plan in Rome, environmental impact assessment and public information (via Oslavia, P. Vescovio, via Taranto, etc.).
Date: 2000-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Latium, environmental impact, parking area, town planning

C 103 E/170

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

To this end the Commission calls on the assistance of expert chemists from each Member State, who meet
regularly in Brussels. They are professionals from universities or research centres and their standing in their
particular fields of expertise is beyond question. As already stated in the reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s
earlier written question P-1763/00 (1), these experts (cid:129) together with other researchers from the main non-
member countries that produce olive oil (cid:129) also take part
in research work coordinated by the
It must be stressed that the IOOC is an
International Olive Oil Council
international organisation which counts the Community among its members and is part of the United
Nations.

(IOOC), based in Madrid.

Under the circumstances, the analytical methods laid down in Commission regulations are chosen precisely
because of their scientific objectivity vis-(cid:224)-vis the physical and chemical problems to be overcome. They do
not work towards political ends and so do not pursue the two goals referred to in the question.

(1) OJ C 72 E, 6.3.2001, p. 111.

(2001/C 103 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2518/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(25 July 2000)

Subject: Urban parking plan in Rome, environmental
Oslavia, P. Vescovio, via Taranto, etc.)

impact assessment and public information (via

Some years ago the Rome city authorities drew up a plan for the construction of underground car parks
known as the urban parking plan (PUP). The project was to be carried out by private firms and the parking
spaces sold to members of the public who applied for them. The building of the car parks has generated
much controversy among local residents because of the length of the work, the effects on traffic, and the
possible environmental impact of the project, which is affecting the stability of buildings, jeopardising
business activity, and often leading to the disappearance of trees and green spaces.

The information provided by the city authorities concerning the dangers posed by the environmental
impact of the car parks has been extremely vague and inadequate, compelling residents to bring the matter
before the regional administrative court in order to safeguard their right to be kept informed on the length
and duration of the building work. This lack of openness on the part of the bodies responsible concerning
the possible dangers posed by the project has also generated legitimate concerns among residents,
prompting them to form protest committees, thereby creating unfortunate and needless conflicts between
residents and the construction firms. It is not these firms (which are running risks themselves and may
have to lay off staff), but rather the city authorities which are responsible for providing public information.
It should also be noted that environmental impact assessments have not been carried out in all cases,
unlike similar projects in various parts of Rome, leading to the conclusion (with reference also to the
Commission(cid:146)s answer to my previous question E-2858/99 (1)) that the provisions of Directive 85/337/
EEC (2) and subsequent amendments are being infringed in that proper prior assessments have not been
performed either for individual projects or for the car parks plan as a whole, a project which, given the
number of construction sites running simultaneously, is having a considerable impact on the environment.

In the light of the above:

1. Does the Commission not consider that the PUP projects should be subject to environmental impact

assessments, together with the car parks project as a whole?

2. Does it not believe that the public has a right to be provided with detailed information by the Rome

city authorities?

3. Does it not believe that the public should be involved in the relevant decisions before these building

projects are begun to allow them to put forward possible alternatives?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 120.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/171

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

(14 September 2000)

impact
Plans are not within the scope of application of the Community directives on environmental
assessment (EIA) (Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment and Directive 97/11/EC (2), amending Directive 85/
337/EEC). However, as stated by the Court of Justice, in the framework of an EIA procedure possible
cumulative effects of different projects should be sufficiently taken into account.

On the basis of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (3) of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information
on the environment, public authorities are required to make information relating to the environment
available to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest (Article
3, paragraph 1). A public authority is obliged to respond to a person requesting information as soon as
possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for a refusal to provide the information
requested must be given (Article 3, paragraph 4). A person who considers that his request for information
has been unreasonably refused or ignored, or has been inadequately answered by a public authority, may
seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant national legal
system (Article 4). This directive was transposed in Italy by (cid:145)decreto legislativo 24 febbraio 1997 n. 39
sulla libert(cid:224) di accesso alle informazioni in materia di ambiente(cid:146).

As for the question of the appropriateness of public participation in the decision-making process, the
Commission welcomes the public taking part in decisions by which it is concerned.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2001/C 103 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2520/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Transparency of State aids

in his answer to my question E-1338/00 (1)

(cid:145)Transfer of jobs from the United
Commissioner Monti
Kingdom to Germany due to tax credits(cid:146) stated that (cid:145)it is important not to overestimate the importance
of aid in firms(cid:146) decisions. Although aid may affect a choice of a new location, it is much more doubtful
that it has a decisive influence on a decision to close or reduce the existing one(cid:146). I would have to doubt
Commissioner Monti(cid:146)s assertion. If state aid is so ineffective, logically Member States would stop offering
these inducements to attract jobs and industry into their regions. However there seems to be little evidence
that in the absence of Community pressure the volume of state aid has diminished.

Is the Commission claiming that the DM seven billion subsidy to the German coal industry has had no
impact on jobs and industry? More importantly, my constituents whose jobs have been lost with the
transfer of the work to Germany will be more concerned that the motivation was influenced by the
rumoured German tax credits.

Will the Commission confirm whether such tax credits were given out or not? If they cannot provide this
information how can they possibly draw any conclusion as to the motivation behind the decision?

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.