WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/01 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Illegal waste discharge in the Kotychi lagoon (Ileia).
Date: 2001-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, complaint to the Commission, environmental protection, national implementing measure, public health, waste disposal, waste management

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/71

In the course of the budgetary procedure, this year as in previous years, Parliament explicitly stated who
the beneficiaries of the grants should be by means of amendments to the draft budget with regard to lines
such as A-3021, A-3026,
the lines relating to external relations and line A-3042. These are the
beneficiaries which Parliament feels are best suited to the purpose of these lines. These amendments list the
beneficiaries in the remarks or introduce specific lines for individual beneficiaries.

The Commission has indicated that it will respect the wishes of the budgetary authority expressed in the
remarks, provided that they do not run counter to its political objectives nor the rules and principles of
sound financial management.

Article 10 of
monitoring.

the standard grant agreements sets out

the arrangements for technical and financial

Moreover, before paying the last instalment, the Commission always checks how Community funds have
been used. With regard to operating grants, it requests an annual statement of accounts and it ensures that
the grant is a balancing subsidy for the organisation and that the co-financing rules are followed. Should
problems arise, a more thorough audit is carried out.

All the rules on the management of Commission grants are contained in the grant management vade
mecum, a public document available on the institutions’ Europa site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/
secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/vm_gm.htm). Chapter 8 of the vade mecum gives detailed instructions
to managers for the regular monitoring of grants and beneficiaries, audits and the possible recovery of
amounts wrongly paid.

(2002/C 160 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Illegal waste discharge in the Kotychi lagoon (Ileia)

Allegations have been made concerning the existence of an illegal and unauthorised discharge in the
vicinity of the Kotychi lagoon (Ileia) which is being used to dispose of waste from the municipality of
Lechaina and the surrounding area in a site protected under the Ramsar International Convention. The
hundreds of tonnes of waste accumulated in the area are being incinerated producing highly dangerous
fumes whose effects on the residents of Lechaina are as yet unknown and resulting in large quantities of
toxic substances and plastics being carried through drainage channels into the Kotychi lagoon.

Will the Commission investigate these allegations and establish whether Community environmental rules
are being infringed? If this proves to be the case, will it take steps to put an end to such infringements?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Greece has classified Kotychi Lagoon as a special protection area (code GR 2330006) under Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). The same area is also
proposed under the same code as a site of Community importance pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). With a view
to the inclusion of the site in the European ecological network Natura 2000, the Greek authorities must
ensure that the activities being undertaken do not cause any deterioration of the site, in accordance with
Article 6 of the Habitats Directive.

C 160 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

On the basis of the Honourable Member’s allegations the Commission has begun an inquiry. A letter has
been sent to the Greek authorities requesting information on compliance with Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 (3), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, on waste (4).
Once it has received the Greek authorities’ reply the Commission will see whether there is any
incompatibility with the Community measures referred to above and will take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure compliance with Community environment law.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2002/C 160 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/01

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE)
and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Poliglás plastic gasification plant in Ribesalbes

In its answer to Written Question E-2153/01 (1) the Commission stated that it was willing to open an
investigation into the Ribesalbes Poliglás plant to determine whether the Spanish authorities had failed to
comply with Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on environmental impact assessment. A few days after the question
was sent, an environmental
impact statement was published in the Official Gazette of the Valencian
Generalitat (autonomous regional government). In addition to the fact that it appeared late and a strangely
short time after the question was tabled, it might be the case that the statement is seriously wanting when
measured against Directive 85/337/EEC.

Could the Commission determine whether the environmental impact statement published by the Valencian
Government is in accordance with the requirements laid down by Community legislation?

Is it already in a position to fulfil the undertaking that it gave in the answer to Written Question E-2153/01
and express an opinion as to whether Directive 90/313/EEC (3) on access to environmental information has
also been infringed in connection with the Poliglás plant?

On a separate point, the Commission reply did not deal properly with the matter of the plastics to be
these plastics
the Poliglás plant. According to Community and Spanish legislation,
reprocessed at
(packaging originating from the chemical and ceramics industries) are classed as hazardous waste because
they previously contained other waste of that type. However, both the company and the Valencian
Government consider them to be non-hazardous waste purely because they are washed before being
incinerated. The Commission maintained that it did not have sufficient information on this subject.

Given that the Commission acts as guardian of the Treaties:

D Is it willing to investigate the situation regarding the plastics as described above?

D Does it believe that simply because they have been washed, the plastics no longer need to be

considered hazardous, despite the fact that they have previously contained toxic substances?

D Does Community legislation have anything to say about the question whether the system referred to

above is compatible with health protection and the right to safety?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 118.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.