WRITTEN QUESTION E-3595/00 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Extension of Adamas harbour, Island of Milos, Cyclades, Greece.
Date: 2000-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Southern Aegean, access to the courts, action brought before an administrative court, coastal protection, environmental impact, environmental law, harbour installation, impact study

C 187 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Since the above clearly constitutes a breach of Community legislation, will the Commission say whether it
intends to look into the question and take whatever steps are appropriate to put an end to the pollution of
the town of Chalkis by cement dust as rapidly as possible?

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

(11 January 2001)

The Commission wrote to the Greek authorities on 13 September 1999 asking for information about how
the Chaldis cement factory operates. In particular, with reference to Directive 84/360/EEC (1), it asked for
precise information about emissions of SO2, NOX and dust from the company(cid:146)s various units. At the
legislation in Greece on 9 and
annual meeting on the introduction of Community environmental
10 December 1999, the Greek authorities promised to send detailed information on how the company
works. In February 2000, the Greek authorities sent information about the company(cid:146)s unit D.

The Commission will write to the Greek authorities again to ask for information about the company(cid:146)s
other units. It will ask for more extensive information about NOX emissions from the company(cid:146)s unit D.

(1) Council Directive 84/360/EEC of 28 June 1984 on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants (OJ L 188,

16.7.1984).

(2001/C 187 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3595/00

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Extension of Adamas harbour, Island of Milos, Cyclades, Greece

By joint order 69269 of 30 March 1998 the Minister of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public
Works and the Minister of
the Merchant Mar(cid:237)ne of Greece approved the above projected works.
In November 1999 the Greek Government decided to go ahead with the work which was described as
In fact the works are fundamentally
from Community funding.
harbour works in order to benefit
transforming the urban and regional planning of the island by embankment of the entire length of the
marine parade where the road runs along the beach, thus creating carriageways and additional areas
allowing various bars and restaurants to set up tables beside the sea.

The environmental impact assessment does not seem to have been carried out in accordance with the
relevant law (Law 1650/1986, Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and joint ministerial orders Nos 69269/5387/
1990). The Council of State, to which an appeal was made on 11 November 1999 for suspension of the
works, rejected the appeal on 18 January 2000 under a recently adopted provision, Article 35 of Law
2721/1999; the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Council of State merely invoked the concept of
(cid:145)public interest(cid:146), without giving any reasons, and thus authorised resumption of the works (2). An appeal to
annul the administration(cid:146)s decision was also lodged on 8 November 1999. When considering this appeal
the Council of State deemed it admissible and thus contradicted itself by casting doubt on the public-
interest argument advanced in its judgment of 18 January 2000. However, the appeal has been pending
since it was lodged, and this has enabled the promoters of the works to complete them.

The possibility of widespread application of the above provision under Law 2721/1999 is dangerously
restricting Greek citizens(cid:146) right to temporary protection by the courts and is likely to allow the completion
of works financed from Community funds that will have irreversible environmental consequences.

Can the Commission consider the above question and take the necessary measures with regard to the
Greek authorities to ensure compliance with Community law, particularly the rules on environmental
impact assessments?

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/19

Does the Commission not consider that there is a need to ask the Greek authorities to refund the
Community funds granted for this project, if Community rules are not being complied with?

in the Commission(cid:146)s view, would be the risks caused by widespread application of the above

What,
provision under Law 2721/1999?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. The assessment provides no details of the works or environment affected, no assessment of the
consequences in all their possible forms, no detail of proposed pollution prevention, reduction or compensation
measures, no consideration of advantages and disadvantages, no justification according to purely environmental
criteria of the solution chosen and no analysis of alternative solutions to protect the Bay of Milos and its eco-
system, the second largest natural bay in the Mediterranean. The Island of Milos is already severely affected by
mineral extraction activities and plans to extend such activities, which are seriously affecting the environment (see
Written Question E-0318/2000). The inclusion of the region on the west coast of Milos in the Natura 2000
network, under Directive 92/43/EEC, published in OJ L 206, 22.7.1992) is being held up by the local authorities
who are mainly responsible for the works concerned.

(2) The main reason for the works is to enlarge the area available for restaurants and bars.

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

(8 February 2001)

Member States do not regularly inform the Commission on the application of Council Directive 85/337/
EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). Consequently, and in response to
the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, the Commission will contact the Greek authorities to ascertain
whether all procedures laid down in the legislation have indeed been carried out.

Where the Commission finds non-compliance with Community law, it may require national authorities to
remove all spending on the project in question from the statement of expenditure bringing to a close the
1994-1999 Multifund Operational Programme for the South Aegean.

As regards Article 35 of Law 2721/99, the Commission would point out that, as things currently stand,
since this is a national law detailing the procedures for third parties to take a case to court, it does not
come under the Community(cid:146)s jurisdiction.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 187 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3599/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 November 2000)

Subject: Signature of Protocols by the Commission

The Alpine Convention, which the European Union signed in 1991 and ratified in 1996, entered into
force in 1998 (while the subsequent protocol on Monaco(cid:146)s accession entered into force in 1999). The
European Union has also signed three implementing protocols (regional planning and sustainable devel-
opment, mountain farming, conservation of nature and the countryside), but has not signed the four other
protocols (mountain forests, tourism, soil conservation, energy) and, by the end of October, had not yet
signed the new transport protocol. At the Sixth Alpine Conference in Lucerne (Switzerland) on 30 and
31 October 2000, the Commission was notable by its absence.

What was the significance of the Commission(cid:146)s failure to attend the conference? What is the explanation
for the Commission(cid:146)s failure to sign any protocols since 1994? Is the Commission interested in the Alpine
Convention? Does the Commission anticipate that the protocols that have already been signed will be
ratified? In future, will the Commission be actively involved in the work of the standing committee and of
the Conference? What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion of the European Charter of Mountain Regions?