WRITTEN QUESTION E-2896/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Branch railway to the port of Marín (Pontevedra, Spain).
Date: 2001-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, access to information, application of EU law, environmental impact, exchange of information, harbour installation, project evaluation, rail network

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/137

(2002/C 134 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2896/01

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Branch railway to the port of Marín (Pontevedra, Spain)

(22 October 2001)

The parish of Lourizan, which comes under the Pontevedra local authority (4 000 inhabitants) has in
recent years suffered from various blows which have seriously impaired the quality of life of its inhabitants
(sewage station malfunction, continual enlargement of the Pontevedra-Marín harbour and problems caused
by a chlorine-producing plant built right next to dwelling houses).

A branch railway to the port of Marín is now under construction, which cuts right through the public
Placeres Square, the heart of the village which surrounds the Square, and necessitates an overpass for road
traffic, a huge concrete barrier which closes off the Square to the north and physically separates it from the
rest of the village.

Eight hundred pupils attending a school in the neighbourhood will use the overpass on a daily basis.

Once the branch railway comes into operation, it will form part of a long-distance rail link. This means
that it should have been the subject of an environmental impact assessment, and the public should have
been kept officially informed as to the proceedings. Neither of these requirements has been met.

What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that Community environmental legislation is complied
with, and particularly Directives 97/11/EEC (1) amending Directive 85/337 (2) on the impact of certain
public and private projects on the environment, and Directive 90/313/EEC (3) on access to information on
the environment?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 2001)

Article 4(2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1) amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2) provides for Member States to determine, on the basis of a case by case examination, the projects
referred to in Annex II which are likely < based on thresholds or criteria or on a combined approach < to
have notable effects on the environment and which will thus be subject to an environmental assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. To determine which of the projects in Annex II are to be
subject to an environmental assessment, Member States must take account of the criteria set out in
Annex III to the Directive. The decision must be made available to the public.

The construction of railways other than those for long-distance rail traffic is referred to in Annex II, point
No 10(c), of Directive 85/337/EEC amended by Directive 97/11/EC in its Spanish version. Provided that
the railway line between the conglomeration of Lourizan and the Port of Marín is connected to a long-
distance railway line, it may also be considered the extension of a long-distance railway link as referred to
in Annex II, point No 13, of the Directive.

On the basis of the elements provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not in a position to
establish whether the Spanish authorities have completely fulfilled their obligations resulting from
Directive 85/337/EEC amended by Directive 97/11/EC. For this reason, the Commission will write to the
Spanish authorities asking them for more detailed information.

If the result of this enquiry leads to the conclusion that the Spanish authorities have not observed
Directive 85/337/EEC amended by Directive 97/11/EC, the Commission might initiate an infringement
procedure pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

C 134 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment (3) provides that public authorities are required to make available information relating to the
environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest.

Article 3(4) states that the public authority must respond to a person requesting information as soon as
possible and at the latest within two months. The reasons for refusing to provide the information
requested must be given and based on the exceptions provided for in Article 3(2) and (3).

Furthermore, Article 4 of Directive 90/313/EEC states that any person who considers that his request for
information has been unreasonably refused or ignored or has been inadequately answered by a public
authority may seek a judicial or administrative review of the decision in accordance with the relevant
national legal system.

The facts as reported by the Honourable Member do not, on their own, permit the Commission to
ascertain whether the Spanish authorities responded inappropriately or not to a request for access to
information, which could constitute an infringement of the provisions of the Directive.

If it should be the case that a request for access to information had been refused by the authority asked, in
infringement of the directive, it would be up to the requester of the information concerned to seek a
review as provided for in the abovementioned Article 4 of the Directive and through the transposed
Spanish law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2002/C 134 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2897/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Commission action to prevent the deterioration of the Pego-Oliva marshes in Valencia (Spain)

The Pego-Oliva marshes are one of the most important wetlands in Spain, and are considered a protected
area both by the authorities of the Autonomous Community and under European legislation (an SPA and
in receipt of LIFE funding), but they continue to be subject to serious problems of environmental
deterioration. These problems have already been highlighted in Written Questions E-1526/99 (1),
E-0349/99 (2), E-3006/98 (3), E-3831/97 (4), E-2834/97 (5) and E-1387/96 (6), and have led to the
Commission approaching the Spanish authorities to investigate the situation. I have no news of the most
recent details of the investigation, nor of the Commission’s final decision.

The deterioration of this nature reserve, however, continues apace. In particular:

< the ‘Monarch’ butterfly is suffering, since the much-abused Pego-Oliva marshes are one of

its

Mediterranean migratory haunts;

< the Pego town council has recently granted permission for the construction of a new golf course, with
hotel facilities, on the edge of the nature reserve, reclassifying farmland which is already negatively
impacting on the reserve’s boundaries. The construction of the golf course will undoubtedly increase
still further the threat to the area’s endangered environment.

These two fresh developments come on top of the serious damage being done to the reserve by intensive
farming,
including pesticide spraying, resulting in the disappearance of half of the bird species which
formerly nested there and continues to threaten many other species, including species of fish.

What are the Commission’s conclusions with regard to its investigation of the Marjal de Pego-Oliva
protected area?