WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Need for an environmental impact assessment of a project in Puerto de Grau (Castellón, Autonomous Community of Valencia).
Date: 2000-11-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, European Regional Development Fund, Spain, application of EU law, building industry, environmental impact, transport of dangerous goods

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/109

(cid:129) a national public awareness campaign aimed at preventing abandonment of children and their re-

integration into (natural or foster) families.

As to the matter of international adoption, the Commission noted in the 2000 Regular Report that
Romania has ratified the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of
Inter-country Adoption in 1994. A number of signatories of the Convention have expressed their concern
with current adoption practices in Romania. The main concern is that legislation on adoption appears to
allow considerations, other than the best interest of the child, to influence decisions on adoption. The
Commission has drawn attention to the fact that this system risks having a negative effect on efforts to
reform the child protection system in Romania.

(1) COM(2000) 710 final.

(2001/C 174 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3670/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(27 November 2000)

Subject: Need for an environmental

impact assessment of a project

in Puerto de Grau (Castell(cid:243)n,

Autonomous Community of Valencia)

Written Question E-2194/00 (1) to the Commission criticised the fact that approval had been given to a
special plan drawn up by the Castell(cid:243)n port authority to build a number of commercial properties and a
multi-cinema complex in the area known as Muelle de Costa without the appropriate environmental
impact assessment having been carried out. If such properties were constructed the town of Castell(cid:243)n
would be virtually closed off from the sea and the landscape would be affected as a result.

In its reply of 7 September 2000 the Commission announced the launch of an investigation with the
Spanish authorities aimed at clarifying whether there had indeed been a failure to comply with Community
environmental legislation, and in particular whether the project might have required a statutory impact
assessment.

Is the Commission already aware of the substance of the special plan drawn up by the Castell(cid:243)n port
authority?

Will it give details of the state of play with regard to its investigation and the reply received from the
Spanish authorities?

Does it not take the view that the said plan constitutes a serious breach of Directive 97/11/EC (2)
(amending Directive 85/337/EEC (3)) which,
includes trading ports and
impact
piers for loading and unloading amongst the installations which are subject to environmental
assessment?

in paragraph 8(b) of Annex 1,

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 84.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

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

(24 January 2001)

The Commission has not yet received a reply from the Spanish authorities regarding the project in
question, but the time limit for this has not yet expired.

The Commission contacted the Spanish authorities in order to obtain information which might point to
incorrect application of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997 (2).

C 174 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-2194/00 (3), the
plan is to build a number of commercial properties and a big cinema complex in Puerto de Grau,
Castell(cid:243)n.

This type of project is listed in point 10(b) of Annex II to the said Directive (urban development projects,
including the construction of shopping centres and car parks) and therefore, under the terms of Article
4(2), it must be made subject to an impact assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 if the Member
State concerned considers that its characteristics so require.

On the basis of the information currently available, the Commission does not consider that the project falls
under Annex I, point 8(b) (trading ports, piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside
ports (excluding ferry piers) which can take vessels of over 1 350 tonnes).

The Commission, in its role as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that
Community law is observed in the case in question.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 84.

(2001/C 174 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(28 November 2000)

Subject: Introduction of blind-spot mirrors

In the Belgian Federation, fifteen people have already been killed on the roads this year because truck-
drivers failed to see them in the blind spot left by their wing-mirrors. According to the Belgian Road Safety
Institute, a truck-driver on average fails to see a road-user to the right of his vehicle in his wing-mirror five
times every day.

Yet there is a simple solution to the problem, the special blind-spot mirror. This is a small convex mirror
which is also used when taking dangerous hairpin bends. However, in order to make it compulsory to
instal these mirrors on vehicles (cid:129) notably trucks (cid:129) Directive 71/127/EEC (1) (last amended by Directive
88/321/EEC (2) of 16 May 1988) would have to be amended.

Would the Council support a proposal by the Commission to amend Directive 71/127/EEC (last amended
by Directive 88/321/EEC of 16 May 1988) so as to make it compulsory for vehicles (cid:129) notably trucks (cid:129) to
be fitted with blind-spot wing mirrors? If not, why does the Council not consider it necessary to introduce
such mirrors in order to reduce the number of deaths on the roads caused by this problem? In its opinion,
what more effective ways might there be of solving the problem of the blind spot in the field of vision of
drivers?

(1) OJ L 68, 22.3.1971, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 147, 14.6.1988, p. 77.

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The Council shares the opinion of the Honourable Member. It considers that a solution to the problem of
the blind spot in the field of vision of drivers of motor vehicles is among the measures which could make
a major contribution to a reduction in the number of road accidents.