WRITTEN QUESTION E-3509/00 by Stefano Zappalà (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pontine islands.
Date: 2000-11-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Latium, application of EU law, environmental protection, nature reserve

C 163 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

contracts and 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating
in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, to construction projects for high-speed
lines which had not yet started at the date of entry into force of the law and for which the fees, even if
they can be calculated, have not yet been determined.

According to the indications of the report accompanying the draft law, its particular purpose would be to
open the awarding of contracts for such works to competition, one of the aims being to arrive at the
adoption of measures to bring procedures in line with European standards on public contracts and to
encourage more transparent management models and to speed up the start of the works.

The Commission will consider this draft law in connection with the policy on public contracts to see
whether it satisfactorily complies with the implementation of the stated aims.

(2001/C 163 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3509/00

by Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Pontine islands

Given that:

(cid:129) there is an archipelago in Lazio known as the Pontine islands;

(cid:129) the Ministry of the Environment has made provision for the establishment of the Ponza and Palmarola

nature reserve;

(cid:129) the Maritime Council has made provision for the establishment of a marine reserve for the Pontine

islands (Ponza, Palmarola and Zannone):

(cid:129) the Lazio regional administrative court has suspended the establishment of the Ponza and Palmarola

nature reserve;

(cid:129) the zoning plans for areas of special protection and sites of Community importance have been drawn

up in accordance with the relevant Community directives;

(cid:129) the local population refuse to accept the limitations involved, having not been consulted on the
matter, even though they are the sole guardians of a highly valuable area that has been preserved only
thanks to them;

Will the Commission say:

(cid:129) whether it intends to investigate this matter?

(cid:129) whether it intends to ensure that the Italian Government is complying with Community legislation,

particularly as regards respecting citizens(cid:146) interests?

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

(12 December 2000)

In the specific case, the fact that on Isole Pontine there have been sites of Community importance
proposed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1) and special protection areas (SPA) classified under Council Directive 79/409/EEC
of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2), means that these directives could constitute the
possibly relevant Community law.

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of
complaint on the application of Community law, no breach can be identified at present.

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/147

As for the consideration of public interest with reference to the setting up of nature conservation
restrictions in certain areas, the Commission would draw the attention of the Honourable Member to the
fact that there is no Community environmental
legislation that provides that the public should be
consulted prior to the setting up of nature parks by the authorities.

However, in general terms, the Commission supports the participation of the public in environmental
decision-making, as is evident in recent legislative proposals such as the environmental impact assessment
directive (3) and the strategic environmental assessment directive (4). Furthermore, the Community has
signed the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision making and
access to justice in environmental matters, which it will ratify as soon as legally possible.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(4) Proposal of the Commission for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council, on the assessment of the effects of
certain plans and programmes on the environment (Common Position of 30 March 2000 in OJ C 137, 16.5.2000).

(2001/C 163 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3512/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Court of Auditors reports on the operating efficiency of the European Monetary Institute and the

European Central Bank

The Commission has taken note of the reports published by the Court of Auditors in the years 1996-
1998, which have highlighted a number of problems regarding the proper use of public money by the EMI
and later the ECB.

The main points to have given rise to concern are:

(cid:129) The method of supervision is such that projects cannot be monitored on a sound and objective basis
and, moreover, there is no simple and coherent way to keep track of progress as regards implementa-
tion.

(cid:129) The use of external consultants has made it difficult to coordinate and oversee the different projects.

(cid:129) As regards the lack of transparency in the implementation of the budget for the year 1998, the
approach adopted at the time when the EMI was succeeded by the ECB was totally unsatisfactory. In
particular, the Court has pointed out that the EMI and ECB consolidated accounting results were not
available and consequently not sent to the Governing Council. Furthermore,
it maintains that the
accuracy of the information has been impossible to check in either bookkeeping or arithmetical terms.

(cid:129) Substantial special bonuses, up to 38 % of their annual salary, have been awarded to some employees

even though the Governing Council did not give the necessary permission.

Bearing in mind that the Commission regularly sends an observer to ECB Governing Council meetings, and
sometimes to its top-level meetings:

1. Can the Commission say whether the Governing Council has discussed the reports referred to above?
What measures have been laid down to avert a repetition of such occurrences? Will the culprits be
disciplined, and will the Executive Board members responsible for the areas in which the greatest
shortcomings have been revealed be publicly censured?

2. Will the Commission allow Parliament to inspect all the correspondence between the ECB and the
Court of Auditors as well as the ECB internal reports on the irregularities revealed by the Court?

3. What attitude has the Commission taken to the ECB regarding the irregularities that have been

brought to light and the ECB(cid:146)s internal management failings?