WRITTEN QUESTION P-2085/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Scandals involving the administration of the land register in Greece.
Date: 2001-07-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, financial control, fraud, land register, management, management audit, operational programme

C 134 E/12

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Nevertheless, the Commission is open to consider all the necessary measures to mitigate, and possibly
eliminate, the incidental death of cetaceans in fishing activities. To this end the Directorate General for
Fisheries, in co-operation with the Directorate General for the Environment, will organise a meeting of a
subgroup of its Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, by the end of 2001, to have
an up-to-date review of scientific evidence and to find solutions to tackle the problem.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2085/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 July 2001)

Subject: Scandals involving the administration of the land register in Greece

The problems which have emerged in connection with the drawing-up of the land register in Greece are
well known, and the Commission sent a corresponding letter to the Greek Government on 19 January
2001.

The dialogue between the Commission and the Greek Government on the funding arrangements for this
project under the second CSF and possible funding under the third CSF is continuing. In the meantime I
have been made aware of the following facts:

4 Surveyors working on the project are paid on the basis of the rights declared, with the result that they
are ‘discovering’ rights which do not actually exist under property law. If a building is divided into
flats, for example, the person making the declaration is told to declare separate property rights in
respect of each individual flat, even though he actually holds a real right to the block of flats as a
whole.

4 Additional payment is planned on the basis of the number of documents forwarded, with the result
that a file is opened for each right declared rather than one file containing all the papers relating to
the rights declared.

4 Surveyors are to receive additional payment for handling complaints. Consequently they have no

interest in ensuring that public notifications are error-free.

4 If, for example, a declared plot is not listed in the first notification because an inefficient member of
staff was unable to locate it, the owner has no right to challenge the content of the first notification,
which constitutes a fundamental breach of Article 6 of Law 2308/1998.

4 In Castoria virtually all the files forwarded after the first notification have been deemed impossible to

locate, with no provisional land register codes.

Is the Commission aware of these circumstances and what steps will it take to deal with the issue?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The establishment of the land register in Greece is co-financed in the framework of the Operational
Programme (OP) for the Environment adopted for the programming period 1994-1999. The responsibility
for the management and control of this project remains with the Greek authorities, that have set up a
special agency (Ktimatologio SA) to carry out the work.

Their duties towards the Commission as a funding partner are: to ensure the sound management of
Community funds; to inform the Commission fully of progress in implementation in particular in the
framework of the monitoring committee for the above mentioned OP; to seek the formal approval of the
Commission for any substantial change in the definition of the project in the course of implementation.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/13

In view of a lack of information, the Commission decided to open a formal enquiry within the terms of
Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)
No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards
coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations
of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1).

Accordingly, the Commission sent a letter to the Greek authorities on 19 January 2001, to which the
Greek authorities replied on 11 February 2001. The Commission requested further clarifications by their
letter dated 11 April 2001, to which the Greek authorities replied on 11 May 2001. The issues raised by
the Honourable Member are well known to the Commission, and are being considered together with
others, as part of this enquiry.

The Commission will now reply to the Greek authorities, with its evaluation of the situation. On the basis
of this evaluation and the reaction of the Greek authorities, the Commission will reach its final conclusion,
which is expected for the month of September 2001.

(1) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2002/C 134 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Aventis T25 genetically modified maize

Given the inadequacy of the research aimed at proving the safety of Aventis T25 for humans and the
environment, and the suspicious trends present in the tests done on chickens, does the Commission plan
to withdraw the authorisation of Aventis 25 against both the Deliberate Release Directive and the Novel
Food Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Aventis T25 genetically modified (GM) maize received approval for the placing on the market under
Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment
of genetically modified organisms (1). The authorisation procedure, as for all product notifications, included
a comprehensive assessment of risks to human health and the environment and subsequent evaluation by
the Scientific Committee on Plants. The Committee concluded that there was no reason to believe that the
placing on the market of this product constituted a risk to either human health or the environment.

According to Article 4(1) of the Directive ‘Member States shall ensure that all appropriate measures are
taken to avoid adverse effects for human health and the environment.’ Articles 11(6) and 12(4) of the
Directive also refer to further measures that can be taken by Member States in view of new information
that becomes available with regard risks to human health and the environment. Furthermore, Article 16 of
the Directive allows a Member State to provisionally ban the use or sale of an authorised product on its
territory where it has justifiable reasons to consider that the product constitutes a risk to human health
and the environment.

Austria invoked the Article 16 clause for the Aventis T25 genetically modified maize in May 2000. The
Scientific Committee on Plants concluded, however,
the information submitted by Austria in
justification of the ban did not alter the original risk assessment. Recently, the United Kingdom has also
invoked the Article 16 clause for this product. The Scientific Committee is currently considering this
matter in terms of risk to human health and the environment and the Commission awaits its opinion on
the matter.

that