WRITTEN QUESTION E-1326/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Restructuring of the Commission's Directorate-General for Fisheries.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, administration of the Institutions, administrative reform, common fisheries policy

C 350 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

it is going to be breached, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for intervention. In such
cases, unless it is clearly claimed that, with reference to a specific project, the competent authorities have
no intention of carrying out a screening/EIA procedure or that they have failed to carry them out, or that
the screening or the EIA procedures have been badly applied, the Commission is obliged to conclude that
a breach cannot be presumed. Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint with regard to the
application of the EIA procedure/screening in this specific case, no breach of the Directive can be identified
at present.

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (3), on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora, provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Conservation Areas
(SCA). Under Article 4, paragraph 5, of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to sites of
Community importance (SCI) when, on the basis of the list of proposed sites of Community importance
(pSCI), they are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 paragraph 2. At present,
SCA have not yet been designated and the list of the SCI has not yet been adopted. However, with
reference to proposed sites of Community importance, in particular when including priority habitat and
species, Member States have certain obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the
Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States(cid:146) authorities are
advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, no likely effects of the landfill project
on the proposed site of Community importance IT5130007 Padule Di Fucecchio have been identified.
Therefore, in the absence of more information on how habitats and species may be affected by the project,
no significant impact of the project on the sites mentioned can be presumed and no breach of the
Directive can be identified at present.

In the light of the above, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no
breach of Directives 85/337/EEC, as modified, and 92/43/EEC can be identified at present in the specific
case. On this basis, a request for explanation to national authorities cannot be justified.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 350 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1326/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for Fisheries

According to information received from fisheries organisations in Portugal, it appears that the Commission
is in the process of restructuring its Directorate-General for Fisheries so as to create a directorate which is
to centralise all policy on internal Community resources, fisheries agreements with northern Europe and
multiannual guidance programmes.

This centralisation would remove responsibility from the remaining directorates and divide Community
policy on fisheries agreements with third countries into two.

Can the Commission confirm this information? If so, what is the purpose of this restructuring?

Does it not take the view that splitting policy on fisheries agreements between north and south will
jeopardise the principle of policy integrity and breach the principle of equal treatment with which all
Community fisheries agreements must comply?

What implications does it consider that this restructuring will have for the EU fishing industry, particularly
for Portugal?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/125

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s Directorate for Fisheries has been reorganised with effect from 1 April 2001.

The new Directorate A (cid:129) Conservation Policy (cid:129) groups together four units one of which handles stock
management in Community waters and where there are common stocks with neighbouring countries i.e.
the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and another deals with the management of the
fleet.

Of necessity, the activities of this Directorate are in no way restricted to any particular geographical area.

Naturally, the principle of equal treatment will be applied and the effect on the Portuguese fishing industry
should be (cid:129) as for others (cid:129) that the Commission(cid:146)s responses in these areas will be even more coherent
and well motivated.

(2001/C 350 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1331/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Has the Commission received representations from a Mr Phil McCarthy (and others) alleging that Tameside
MBC breached the terms of Directive 97/11/EC (1), insofar as it relates to the need for environmental
impact assessments, by approving without undertaking an EIA the relocation of Hattersley High School to
a green field site known locally as (cid:145)Backbower(cid:146), off Mottram Old Road, within the Tameside borough?

If so, what action is the Commission taking or does it propose to take?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

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

(21 June 2001)

Unfortunately, the Commission is not in a position to provide the Honourable Member with information
regarding the identity of individual complainants and/or the subject matter of their complaints. Complaints
to the Commission are handled in confidence unless the complainant
indicates otherwise. When
complaints from the public are formally registered by the Commission, complainants are informed that
their identity or information which may lead to their identification will only be revealed if their express
permission is given. This guarantee is important as it ensures the confidence of complainants who may
draw the Commission(cid:146)s attention to potential infringements of Community law without fear of adverse
consequences deriving from the disclosure of their identity.

(2001/C 350 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1336/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Proceedings against Greece with regard to French diplomas in psychology and their recognition

under Directive 89/48/EEC

In its reply to my Written Question H-0250/01 (1) concerning diplomas awarded by French universities
under franchise agreements with Greek free study centres and following infringement proceedings against