WRITTEN QUESTION P-3498/00 by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Western Landfill Utility (Aterro sanitário do oeste).
Date: 2000-11-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, waste management

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/141

(2001/C 163 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3496/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Date labelling of photographic paper

I am informed that photographic paper sold to amateur photographers who wish to make their own black
and white or colour prints does not carry a (cid:145)sell by(cid:146) or (cid:145)use by(cid:146) date, despite the fact that colour paper
(in particular) has a useful life of just 18 months.

Trading standards officers inform me that as manufacturers are not dating their paper voluntarily action
must be taken by the European Commission if a change is to be secured.

Will the Commission state whether it intends to assist consumers by requiring photographic paper to be
labelled accordingly?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission does not believe that a specific initiative under consumer protection policy can currently
be taken on the question raised by the Honourable Member, given the priorities of the Commission(cid:146)s work
programme and the principle of subsidiarity.

An initiative of this kind could be taken, if appropriate, by the Member States, provided that compliance
with the rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of movement was ensured.

(2001/C 163 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3498/00

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject:

(cid:145)Western Landfill Utility(cid:146) (Aterro sanitÆrio do oeste)

(6 November 2000)

On 21 October I visited Cadaval, and met the local population, the (cid:145)Movement for Proper Information
about the Western Landfill Utility(cid:146) (MPI), and distinguished Portuguese technical specialists. As a result
I was able to verify the fact that Resioeste choice of site for the Western Landfill Utility respects neither
rational criteria, nor the local population, nor the environment. Not only because, compared with all the
other options, the site chosen is the most costly in economic and social terms, but also, and above all,
because it will cause the greatest environmental damage (particularly to the region(cid:146)s water resources).
I would add that the entire process has been plagued by appalling administrative obstructions on the part
of the Portuguese Government.

The MPI has lodged a timely complaint against the Portuguese Government, impeccably argued in both
technical and legal terms, with DG Regio and DG Env.

Since what is at stake is the proper use of Community funds (given that this landfill will be supported by
the Cohesion Funds), the conservation of the environment and the wellbeing of the local population, can
the Commission tell me:

1. What action (cid:129) which will have to be urgent, given that Resioeste has already begun work on carrying

out the landfill (cid:129) is it taking to ensure that Community law is respected?

2. What information was it supplied with by the Portuguese Government?

C 163 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

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

(15 December 2000)

At a meeting in Lisbon on 7 November 2000 the Portuguese authorities gave some preliminary
explanations of the situation regarding the controlled urban waste landfill project in Western Portugal,
which they were to expand on in a letter to be sent to the Commission by 6 December 2000. They tried
to show, amongst other things, that the whole of Western Portugal contains aquifers in permeable ground
and that it would therefore have been difficult to choose a site which was not sensitive from the point of
view of this environmental aspect.

The Commission is currently analysing the explanations already supplied by the Portuguese authorities. Its
analysis is chiefly based on the obligations arising from Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1).

The project in question is covered by Annex II to the Directive, i.e. it is a project for which an assessment
must be carried out where the Member State in question considers that its characteristics so require.
However, the Member States(cid:146) margin for discretion as to how to conduct an assessment required pursuant
to the Directive is limited by Article 2, which stipulates that Member States must adopt all measures
necessary to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the
environment are made subject to an assessment with regard to their effects.

The project has not been subjected to an impact assessment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC. If,
having analysed all the Portuguese authorities(cid:146) explanations, the Commission were to confirm that, in spite
of these explanations, the site selected for the project contained aquifers regarded as strategic reserves for
the project was therefore likely to have significant effects on the
the area in question, and that
environment, it would be obliged to make use of the legal instruments provided for in the EC Treaty for
ensuring the correct application of Community law.

Finally, the Honourable Member is informed that, in examining the complaint he mentions, the Commis-
sion will pay particular attention to compliance with Community financing regulations.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2001/C 163 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/00

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Provocative statements by Turkish Minister

Turkey(cid:146)s Minister for Internal Affairs, Mr Sukru Sina Gurel, stated on 11 October 2000, during the
ceremony to re-open the (cid:145)University of the Aegean(cid:146) ((cid:145)Ege University(cid:146)) that (cid:145)Turkey does not consider its
accession to the EU to be conditional upon either a solution to the Cyprus issue or the settlement of
Greek-Turkish differences(cid:146). To reaffirm his position, the Turkish Minister also referred to the (cid:145)two letters
which the Turkish Prime Minister sent to the EU immediately after the Helsinki European Council
last December(cid:146), in which Mr Ecevit stresses Turkey(cid:146)s reluctance to accept any preconditions or terms for
its accession to the EU. The Turkish Interior Minister also added that (cid:145)everyone must accept the existence
of two states in Cyprus(cid:146) and called on the EU (cid:145)to resolve the problem of racism in its Member States before
rushing to criticise Turkey(cid:146).

What is the Commission(cid:146)s position on the statements which the Turkish Minister for Internal Affairs has
aimed at the EU, given that they create an anti-European climate in a country applying for accession and
fly in the face of the Helsinki Summit decisions which require Turkey to conduct itself in a manner
befitting a European state and to consolidate good neighbourly relations with Greece? Furthermore, does