WRITTEN QUESTION P-1432/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Is Arenas ‐ golf courses remain open despite reasoned opinion.
Date: 2001-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sardinia, environmental law, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, sports facilities

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/153

As regards the situation of sports technicians from non-Member countries and Italian sports technicians,
I would refer the Honourable Member of Parliament to the answer given to Written Question E-3976/00.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 205.

(2001/C 350 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1432/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Subject: Is Arenas (cid:129) golf courses remain open despite reasoned opinion

On 9 February the European Commission issued a reasoned opinion on failure to apply the Habitats
Directive (92/43) at the Is Arenas resort in Narbolia (Sardinia), where a golf course was built without any
appropriate environmental impact assessment being carried out. Although the deadline for complying with
the provisions of the reasoned opinion has expired, the course is regularly open on Wednesdays, Saturdays
and Sundays, according to the statement made by Pier Maria Pell(cid:242), the Is Arenas company(cid:146)s administrator,
to the monthly (cid:145)La Gazetta Sarda(cid:146) (March 2001 issue). The Is Arenas company advertises the golf course as
being (cid:145)open all year round, every day, including Monday(cid:146) and regularly hosts 17 golf tournaments from
May to the end of the year [http://www.isarenas.it].

The property company(cid:146)s website advertises the following amenities as already available: 18-hole golf
course, par 72; 3-hole course, par 3 executive and training course; club house with restaurant; fully
equipped changing rooms.

As regards watering arrangements for the golf course, the company has apparently built 24 artesian wells,
all inside the Is Arenas SIC (site of community interest) ITB002228, by drilling to a depth of over 200
metres without any meters being installed to keep a check on water extraction.

The same reasoned opinion confirms that there is a serious risk of groundwater pollution both through
salination, which the property company itself recognises as having already begun, and through the
pesticides and chemical fertilisers used to maintain the grass surface, which are posing a threat to the site
as a whole and the three priority habitats within it.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to close down these golf courses in order to preserve this
(cid:145)site of community interest(cid:146) from irreversible degradation?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to remedy the environmental damage caused by
deforestation, the building of the golf resort and water extraction?

What measures does it intend to take to ensure that the public authorities responsible for granting
permission to build the golf amenities (Sardinia Region and Narbolia municipality) reverse their decision
(municipal building authorisations of 25 February and 21 May 1999 and regional resolution 899 of
14 April 2000)?

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

(20 June 2001)

The information mentioned by the Honourable Member concerns a situation which is covered by an open
infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty. The contents of infringment
procedures are confidential. The response of the Italian authorities to the reasoned opinion mentioned by
the Honourable Member is currently under the assessment of the Commission.

The Commission has no power to issue orders to national administrations of Member States. Where the
Commission considers that a Member State has failed to comply with Community law,
it may start
infringement procedures:
it may formally request the Member State to communicate information and
observations on a certain case (letter of formal notice), it may deliver as its reasoned opinion that a certain
Member State has failed to comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and it may bring the case

C 350 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

before the Court of Justice. However, even judgements of the Court of Justice only state whether there has
been an infringement. The Court of Justice can neither annul a national provision which is incompatible
with Community law, nor force a national administration to respond to the request of an individual, nor
order a Member State to pay damages to an individual adversely affected by an infringement of
Community law. Only national courts can issue orders to administrative bodies and annul a national
decision. It is also only national courts which have the power, where appropriate, to order a Member State
to make good the loss sustained by individuals as a result of the infringement of Community law
attributable to it.

As regards questions concerning environmental damage, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to
refer to the reply to her Written Question E-1038/2000 (1).

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

(2001/C 350 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1438/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE)
and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Migratory flows to Greece and protecting the external borders

Given that Greece faces particular problems in protecting its borders which are also the external borders of
the Union, mainly owing to its special geographical features, and given also that the EU has adopted
a series of measures and policies on asylum, illegal immigration and the crossing of its external borders,

will the Commission say:

1. What implementing measures and actions has Greece taken within the EU framework to protect its

borders, to manage migratory flows effectively and to prevent illegal immigration?

2. What amount of appropriations has Greece taken up from EU budget funds in 1997, 1998, 1999 and
2000 to cover the cost of protecting borders, transferring technology and actions to prevent illegal
immigration and repatriation (expulsion)?

3. What amount of appropriations have been made available to Greece in the field of justice and internal
affairs to integrate refugees and for asylum and refugee policy on the basis of the European Refugee
Fund (1) and other EU programmes, such as Odysseus (2), and what actions are covered by these
appropriations?

4. What official information is available concerning refugee, asylum, immigration and illegal immigration

and naturalisation figures in Greece?

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 99, 31.3.1998, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2001)

1.
In December 1999, following visits to inspect controls at land and sea borders, the Council decided
that the Schengen acquis was to be fully implemented in Greece with effect from 1 January 2000 and
planned a further observation visit during 2000.

The experts who carried out the visit found that the control procedures were generally adapted to
Schengen requirements, pointing out that improvements had been made in terms of the number of staff
and facilities. They recommended that that the Greek authorities harmonise training programmes and
continue to take measures to question and remove illegal aliens.