WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/01 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. World Cup 2002 — Commission cooperation with the Japanese and Korean authorities.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Japan, South Korea, disclosure of information, exchange of information, police cooperation, professional sport, sporting event

C 172 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

The technical annex to the call requires that the selected team cover all EU languages so that it can
maintain contacts with the beneficiaries in all Member States and monitor the projects they receive in all
EU languages.

reasons, and to facilitate communication between all

For practical
team members and with the
Commission, the working and communication languages are limited to two (English and French). The
team leader and staff responsible for coordination with the Commission should, in addition to an active
knowledge of English and/or French, have a passive knowledge of the other language. These are the
working languages which are used by the staff of the LIFE programme management unit and in the
working documents of that unit.

As it is contained in a specific technical assistance contract, this language requirement does not call into
question the rules governing languages in the EU.

Such a requirement is not a distortion of the market. The aim is to ensure the quality and coherence of the
team’s work and thereby its efficiency.

Out of the five tenders received, three complied with the linguistic selection criteria.

The results of the evaluation of the selection criteria for all tenders received are being sent directly to the
Honourable Members and to the Secretariat-General of the Parliament.

(1) OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: World Cup 2002 8 Commission cooperation with the Japanese and Korean authorities

Is the Commission planning to coordinate the provision of information to the Japanese and Korean
authorities regarding European Union citizens who have been convicted of football-related offences in a
Member State or deported from a Member State, so that the Japanese and Korean authorities may control
entry to the World Cup matches in June 2002.

If it is planning to assist in the provision of this information, how will it ensure that the individuals are
informed that they may be refused entry?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission is not planning to coordinate the provision of information related to Union citizens to
the Japanese and Korean authorities in the context of the World Cup matches in 2202 and has no
competence to do so.

In addition, since the next World Championship will be held in Asia, the Commission has no specific
information regarding the organisation of the tournament.

The Commission is aware however that some Member States are in contact with the organising countries
8 Korea and Japan 8 as regards the possible supply of information on their national supporters so as to
enable the organising countries to better prepare their security measures. The extent to which Union
citizens will be informed that their personal data is being transmitted to the Japanese and Korean
authorities depends on the law of their Member State.

As the Honourable Member knows, there has been a successful development of the co-operation between
law enforcement services of the Member States on public order and security during sporting events
organised inside the Union over the past few years.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/57

Some examples that can be mentioned are:

8 the possibility for Member States to send police officers to the Member State where an international
competition is played, with the task of tracking supporters and, where authorised, co-operate with
local authorities;

8 the development of common standards for Member States hosting international sporting events;

8 adoption by the Council of recommendations as regards the prevention and control of disorder at

football matches.

(2002/C 172 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Gypsum quarry in Moralet (Alicante 8 Spain)

(21 December 2001)

A gypsum quarry has been operating illegally in the district of Amoladoras (Moralet) since 1998. On
several occasions neighbours have complained about it to various public authorities because of the health
hazards, respiratory problems (caused by too much dust) and noise affecting the local population. At first
the protests 8 supported by the ombudsman of Valencia 8 led the city council to promote a ‘report’ on
environmental impact as a pre-condition for the possible granting of a licence. However, although the
report approved the installation it did not take account of the existence of neighbouring settlements 8
situated only 20, 40 and 80 metres from the quarry 8 nor did it propose measures to reduce the impact
that running the quarry might have on the surroundings and on the health of neighbours.

Although it does not meet the minimum environmental and public health requirements, the quarry is still
operating without a municipal licence.

Since, because of its characteristics, the Moralet quarry:

8 comes within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and subsequent amendments (environmental

impact) as an ‘extractive industry’ within the meaning of Annex II;

8 comes within the field of application of Directive 90/313/EEC (2) (information on the environment),
pending the entry into force of the amended version), according to Article 2(b), which mentions
‘activities … which give rise to nuisances’.

What steps will
the Commission take to guarantee compliance with the provisions of Directive
85/337/EEC in this case, in order to ensure that a proper environmental impact assessment is carried out?

How does the Commission intend to guarantee the local population’s right to accurate information on the
possible risks inherent in the quarry, in accordance with the provisions of Directive 90/313/EEC?

Can the Commission ensure that the gypsum quarry at Moralet does not infringe Community legislation as
regards the overall category of noise prevention, especially noise caused by machinery?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment could