WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/01 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission. Waste disposal in Chalkidiki, Greece.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Macedonia, bathing water, environmental monitoring, exchange of information, marine pollution, organic fertiliser

C 93 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

The Council of State has just, for the second time, penalised the Minister of Regional Development and the
Environment, by judgment of 22 June 2001 (case no 219995) because, despite his claims, he was unable
to prove that he had genuinely completed the whole of the consultation procedure required by French law
before information is forwarded to the European authorities.

France’s Minister of the Environment is now therefore compelled to initiate a genuine local consultation
procedure before forwarding any further information. But will he genuinely take account of local people’s
opinions? In France, in most areas which are not currently the subject of any strong regulatory protection
of the nature-reserve type, representatives of land-owners, managers and users, without having been
officially consulted, have virtually unanimously expressed their opposition to the possibility that their area
might be designated eligible for recognition as being of Community importance. France’s Minister of the
Environment has not taken their adverse opinions into account but has notified the Commission of the
areas in question.

Does the implementation of public policies concerning the conservation of the environment and regional
development, particularly the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, require direct consultation of
local people, particularly land-owners, managers and other users?

In the light of developments at Community level regarding taking account of the opinions of local people
(particularly the integration of the Aarhus Convention), to what extent must Member States take account
of the opinions of these local people when forwarding notifications concerning areas eligible for inclusion
in the Natura 2000 network, especially where representatives of land-owners, managers and users are
unanimously opposed to such notification?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

According to information sent to the Commission, the Council of State’s judgment of 27 September 1999
rescinded the notification of 534 sites proposed to the Commission for the Natura 2000 network by the
French authorities, on the grounds that the statutory consultation procedure had not been followed
properly. As yet, the Commission has received no official communication from the French authorities
regarding the situation.

Regarding the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, Directive 92/43/EEC (1), adopted unanimously
lays down protection objectives for natural sites of
by the European Council of Ministers in 1992,
Community importance. Like all directives, however, it leaves Member States free to choose the way in
which they will achieve those objectives. The choice and delimitation of sites and the procedures for
consulting local stakeholders fall within the jurisdiction of the national authorities.

Neither the Community nor France has yet ratified the United Nations/ECE Convention on access to
information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. As a
result, the obligations laid down by the Convention are not yet applicable.

In any event, the Convention contains no specific requirement regarding public consultation in cases such
as this.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 93 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/01

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Waste disposal in Chalkidiki, Greece

I have been informed about possible infringements of Community environment and hygiene rules in
Chalkidiki, Greece, where slurry is reportedly dumped regularly into the sea near beaches. Slurry is
reportedly also stored there with various types of waste on dried-out river beds.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/181

Is the Commission aware of these incidents? If so, what steps are being taken in this connection?

Should the Commission not have any knowledge of the incidents, is it planning to investigate them?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The water quality in the Greek area Chaldiki is monitored according to the Bathing Water Directive (1). On
75 beach locations in the area, water quality is examined throughout the bathing season. According to
these measurements water quality has been excellent in all locations since 1993.

The Commission is not aware of cases where slurry or waste would have been poured into the sea or
dumped into dry river beds. It would be grateful to receive further information relating to such activities
(time,
location, volume). When such information is made available, the Commission would be better
placed to pursue the issue with the local authorities.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, OJ L 31, 5.2.1976.

(2002/C 93 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2733/01

by Sebastiano Musumeci (UEN) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Seizure of a motorised fishing boat in the Sicilian Channel

For some years now Sicilian fishing boats have been unjustly seized by the Tunisian authorities in the
international waters of the Sicilian Channel, in violation of the basic principles of the international law of
the sea. Last week another motorised fishing boat from Mazara del Valle, the most important port in Italy,
was seized by them. The seizure of fishing boats causes serious economic damage to Sicilian fishermen.

Can the Commission say:

1. Whether it is aware of these problems; whether it can take steps to ensure that regrettable incidents of

this kind no longer occur?

2. What new rules on fishing in the Mediterranean Basin does the Commission intend to introduce, in
particular concerning issues related to fishing in the Sicilian Channel, the most important of which is
the partnership with the countries bordering on the Mediterranean?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the incidents involving Sicilian fishing vessels that have been taking place in
the international waters of the Sicilian Channel for several years.

The limits to the action the Commission can take in situations of this kind were examined recently in a
study carried out by its departments (see Commission working paper on the current responsibilities of the
Commission and the Member States in relation to fisheries agreements with third countries (1). The study
was also sent to Parliament and discussed by its Committee on Fisheries). While it is concerned primarily
with incidents occurring under fisheries agreements, the study deals also with the steps the Commission
can take where incidents occur in circumstances unconnected with fisheries agreements, as in the cases
involving the Tunisian authorities. The above working paper examines the roles of the various parties
concerned, namely the flag Member State,
the
Commission is not involved and therefore bears no responsibility in the event of the arrest of fishing
vessels in such a situation.

the Commission and vessel owners, and states that