WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/01 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid for construction of plants for the separation and treatment of light packaging.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, financing method, waste recycling

C 364 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

figure since no completion date is currently available because of delays resulting from legal disputes about
the management of the site by S.A. Berlaymont 2000. The original budget estimate made in July 1997 was
BEF 13,073 million (€ 324 million).

The added cost of relocation of staff from the old building to the renovated building is not easy to quantify
with precision because many moves from, or into, a building necessitate a number of complementary
moves in or to other buildings. In 1991, when the Commission left the Berlaymont, about 3 000 people
moved to substitution buildings, triggering roughly 6 000 complementary moves. It is likely that the
reoccupation of the building would necessitate a similar number of moves. In 2001 the average per
capita cost of a move, including furniture and informatics, ranges between € 100 and € 300 per person
depending on the technical conditions and complexity of the works to be carried out. These relocation
expenses constitute part of the global building and informatics expenditure foreseen in the Commission
budget under Titles A-1 and A-5.

In this context, it is important to note that when the Commission vacated the Berlaymont in 1991, it was
agreed that it would continue to pay rent for the building and that the Belgian state would in return cover
the much higher rental cost of those buildings which the Commission has been obliged to use as
temporary substitutes for the Berlaymont. In 2001, the Commission pays a rent of € 14 140 135 for the
Berlaymont whilst the Belgian State pays € 32 382,92 for the substitution buildings. This arrangement will
continue until reoccupation of the Berlaymont is satisfactorily completed.

For further information, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answers to Written
Questions E-936/01 by Mr Sj(cid:246)stedt (1) and E-1575/01 by Mrs van der Laan (2).

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.
(2) See p. 152.

(2001/C 364 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1617/01

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Aid for construction of plants for the separation and treatment of light packaging

The Association of Local Authorities of the Western Costa del Sol, in Malaga province (Spain), has entered
into an agreement with an enterprise in the sector for the selective collection of light packaging (plastics,
cartons, cans) and for the construction and operation of a plant for the separation of such packaging in the
association(cid:146)s member municipalities.

The aim is to meet the deadlines laid down by the EU directives for introducing selective waste collection.

Can the Commission state on what basis bodies such as this association can benefit from Council aid for
the construction, maintenance and operation of plants of this nature?

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

(25 July 2001)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Member States have a certain amount of
discretion in implementing their obligation under Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on
packaging and packaging waste (1). In particular this applies in respect of the Member States(cid:146) obligation to
meet the recovery targets in Article 6 and the establishment of return, collection and recovery systems
under Article 7 of the Directive.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/161

Concerning Community aid to waste treatment plants in Member States, it can be stated that no special
programme to finance or co-finance waste treatment facilities exists. However, different options to improve
the state of the environment are available within the framework of the structural and cohesion funds.
Member States are at liberty to submit proposals for such projects. In addition, funds for implementing
innovative approaches to tackle environmental problems are available under the LIFE programme. All
listed on the website (cid:129)
funding offers
www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/funding/intro_en.htm.

from the Directorate general

(DG) Environment are

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 364 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1619/01

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Candidacy of Malaga for the seat of the EU(cid:146)s future Maritime Safety Agency

Malaga has submitted its candidacy for the seat of the EU(cid:146)s Maritime Safety Agency. Among the factors
supporting this candidacy are the location of the Sea of AlborÆn on one of the world(cid:146)s busiest maritime
routes and the fact that the Straits of Gibraltar are crossed by between 70 000 and 80 000 vessels every
year.

While other cities will also apply, Malaga(cid:146)s candidacy would ensure a Mediterranean location for the
agency which could be the salvation of an ocean that has suffered severe damage from a level of maritime
traffic in excess of its ecological capacities.

Does the Commission believe that objective criteria should be established for choosing among the cities
put forward for the Agency(cid:146)s seat, to include compliance with the existing on-board safety rules, levels of
risk insurance provision, and coordination management in respect of the provisions of national law in the
field?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2001)

The Commission proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Maritime Safety Agency was presented
on 6 December 2000 in the context of a second package of measures following the (cid:145)Erika(cid:146) accident (1).

Since the presentation of this proposal, the Commission has indeed received a number of applications by
Member States or regional authorities, among which is an application by the city of Malaga.

The Commission would agree with the Honourable Member that certain objective criteria have to be taken
into account by the competent Authority when deciding on the location of the Agency.

(1) COM(2000) 802 final.

(2001/C 364 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1623/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition as medical treatment centres of mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes

In Germany and Austria, as well as in several applicant countries (such as Slovenia, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia and Hungary), mineshafts used for therapeutic purposes are recognised, for example, as medical
treatment centres. Accordingly, sickness insurance schemes bear the cost of the treatment which they offer.