WRITTEN QUESTION P-3194/01 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Thessaloniki underground: information on the outcome of the project and its inclusion in the Third CSF.
Date: 2001-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Regional Development Fund, Macedonia, exchange of information, financing plan, underground railway

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/219

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

The Commission publishes information about the state of transposition of Internal Market directives by
Member States in its bi-annual Internal Market Scoreboard. The November 2001 issue of the Scoreboard is
sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat General and is also available at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/update/score/index.htm. Information about the transposition
of all Community directives is published in the Commission’s Annual Report on Monitoring the
Application of Community Law (1).

As at 15 October 2001, Portugal’s deficit for transposition of Internal Market Directives stood at 2.5 %.
With this score, which is slightly above the Community average of 2 %, Portugal ranks 10th of all Member
States. While Portugal has considerably improved its performance over the last twelve months, it still has
some way to go to meet the target set by the European Council of 98.5 % or more of all Internal Market
directives transposed by the time of the Barcelona European Council (15/16 March 2002). Currently, only
Denmark, Spain, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden meet this target.

At present, 10 % of Internal Market directives have not yet been transposed by all Member States. The
Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that this so-called ‘fragmentation factor’ reduces the
impact of the Internal Market on economic conditions and citizens’ rights by creating unnecessary legal
uncertainty. Responsibility for this has to be shared by all Member States, who need to make a concerted
effort to honour legal obligations which they have entered into when these outstanding directives were
adopted. The Commission has launched infringement proceedings for all cases of non-transposition.

A list of Internal Market directives for which Portugal has not yet communicated implementing national
measures to the Commission is also sent direct to the Honourable member and to Parliament’s Secretariat
General. This list reflects the latest available information as of 20 November 2001.

(1) Eighteenth Report of 2000: COM(2001) 309 final. Volume I.

(2002/C 93 E/265)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3194/01

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 November 2001)

Subject: Thessaloniki underground: information on the outcome of the project and its inclusion in the

Third CSF

Once again I would like to put a question on the subject of the Thessaloniki underground, since the
Commission has been unable to provide relevant information on the progress of the project, either to the
Committee on Petitions, where I raised the issue, or in its answers to my questions, stating on every
occasion that the Greek Government, which has not yet submitted the financing plan, was responsible for
the project’s delay.

With particular reference to the statement in September 2001 by the former Minister for the Environment,
Physical Planning and Public Works that a bill would be introduced in the Greek Parliament dealing with
any modifications to be made to the contract adopted in 1999:

Can the Commission answer the following:

A Has all the requisite information finally been sent by the Greek Government to the Commission and
what developments have there been with regard to funding and, more generally, the progress of the
project and the removal of legal delays?

A Is the Greek Parliament’s readoption of the bill, amending the terms of the contract signed back in

1999, consistent with Community rules?

C 93 E/220

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

A Since 16 months have passed since the contract was signed, what extensions have been agreed
between the contractor and the Greek State, how many such extensions have there been, have they
been notified to the Commission and what is the time-limit on extensions to such an agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Greek government’s legal advisers
have submitted recent documents on the execution of the project to the Commission. Having examined
these documents, the Commission has sent a letter to the Greek authorities seeking clarification on certain
points in these documents and on the project in general. Once an answer has been received from the
Greek authorities, the Commission will be in a position to propose what action should be taken.

As for funding, the Thessaloniki underground project is one of the priorities of the ‘Main highways, Ports
and Urban Development’ Operational Programme (OP)
in the Community Support Framework (CSF)
2000-2006 for Greece (with planned European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance of €122
million out of a total cost of €657 million). The national authorities have yet to submit a request to the
Commission to confirm the level of Community co-funding for this major project, in accordance with
Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (1). It is clear that compliance with Community legislation is one of the preconditions
for ERDF funding of the project in question.

The Honourable Member asks whether the fact that the Greek Parliament will be asked to adopt a law
ratifying the modifications to the concession contract violates Community law. On this matter, it should be
pointed out that such ratification is not in itself contrary to Community law.

Finally, as regards the provision in the contract for extending the period during which the concessionaire
should have signed loan contracts with the banks, the Commission feels that, in the case in question, this
does not fall within the scope of Community law.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 93 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Forest reproductive material A registration and protection

(30 November 2001)

the Commission take steps to protect

the Community seed stands registered under Directives
Will
66/404/EEC (1), 71/161/EEC (2) or 1999/105/EC (3) on the Marketing of Forest Reproductive Materials
which currently may be felled without any suitable assessment?

In Ireland, the State Forestry Board Coillte Teo has felled over 1 474 hectares of registered seed stands
without any form of licensing which would require individual assessment, although the entire register
covers only 3 715 hectares and only 20 % of Ireland’s seed is from native sources. Further, by delegating
the task of drawing up the national register of basic forest reproductive material required under the
Directive to Coillte Teo, the country’s largest harvester of timber, Ireland’s practice is not in accordance
with the Directives which specifically exclude any legal person or its members from maintaining the seed
stand registers if they could derive financial gain from the measures it takes under the Directives.

Would the Commission, therefore, take steps to ensure that the native seed stands in every Member State
that receives EU funding for afforestation, including Ireland, are registered under the Directive only by
independent qualified parties and that, once registered, any felling is prohibited without suitable assessment
and the attachment of necessary conditions to respect the purpose of the Directive?

(1) OJ B 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2326.
(2) OJ L 87, 17.4.1971, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 11, 15.1.2000, p. 17.