WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/01 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Construction of a marina in the Vigo ria (Spain).
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Galicia, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, harbour installation, impact study, prevention of pollution

C 172 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Until investigations are concluded it is clearly not possible to say whether or not any prosecutions will be
undertaken.

The ultimate responsibility for the modernisation project lies with SA Berlaymont 2000.

The accumulated delays in work mean that SA Berlaymont 2000 now anticipates that the building will be
ready for occupation by 31 December 2003.

The ‘Protocole d’Accord’ of 1997 included a provision that the Commission and the Belgian government
would, in due course, negotiate a contract concerning the purchase of the building by the Commission.
Those negotiations have been underway since January 2001.

If they lead to a mutually satisfactory conclusion on all outstanding legal, financial and technical issues,
and if the work is of an acceptable quality (‘une bonne fin’ under the terms of the Protocol) the
Commission intends to return to the Berlaymont.

(2002/C 172 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3495/01

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

Subject: Construction of a marina in the Vigo ria (Spain)

(8 January 2002)

The Voces polo literal de Teis association has expressed its concern regarding the plans for a marina in the
A Lagoa area, which would do yet more environmental damage to the Vigo ria (Galicia, Spain). Its
complaints are based on a report by the Vigo Ria Environmental Monitoring Centre and on documents
published by the Maritime Research Institute.

The Commission has already been alerted to the pollution of the beach at Samil and the plans for a waste
dump in the San Simón inlet 9 these being just two of the projects which seriously threaten Galicia’s
coastline. The marina will have a 235-metre long breakwater and building it will cause major alterations to
the area’s eco-system and also the loss of the beach at A Lagoa.

In what way can the Commission intervene vis-à-vis the relevant authorities in order to ensure compliance
with Community environment
impact
assessment?

law, particularly Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on environmental

Will the Commission say whether or not Community funding has been requested for the purpose of
carrying out the project?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2002)

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), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2),
could apply in the case in question as marinas are covered by Annex II (point 12(b)).

It should be noted that Article 2 of the Directive provides that projects likely to have significant effects on
the environment by virtue of their nature, size or location must be assessed with regard to their effects
before authorisation is granted.

For the projects listed in Annex II, the Member States must determine, on the basis of a case-by-case
examination or thresholds or criteria laid down by the Member State concerned, whether the project has
to undergo an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. For the case-by-case examination or when

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/73

laying down thresholds or criteria, the Member State has to take account of the relevant selection criteria
laid down in Annex III. The decision taken by the authority must be made available to the public.

The Commission cannot ascertain how the Spanish authorities have decided to apply the Directive solely
on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member.

However, in accordance with Article 3(2) of Directive 97/11/EC, if a request for development consent was
submitted before 14 March 1999, the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments
continue to apply.

Furthermore, in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds (3), the selection of individual projects cofinanced within each
programme under the Structural Funds is the sole responsibility of the Member States.

At all events, the Commission will be contacting the Spanish authorities to ask them for their comments
on the facts referred to by the Honourable Member in order to ensure that the relevant Community law is
complied with in the case in question.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 172 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3500/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Longer journey times and fare rises for rail passengers due to the introduction of an inflexible

ticketing system for high-speed trains

Is the Commission aware that

1.
long-distance rail services in Europe have traditionally enabled
passengers to decide at the very last moment to travel on the next train, as tickets may be used at different
times within their period of validity on trains travelling at different speeds and sometimes even on different
routes?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, traditionally, it has also been possible to pay the conductor any
surcharges for express services and any reservation charges after boarding the train, if necessary, and that
only reservations for seats, beds or couchettes lapse without any right to a refund if they are not used at
the appointed time?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that a quite different rail ticketing system is developing, particularly for
high-speed train services, similar to that which applies to flying, so that passengers no longer have the
option of choosing to travel on the next train but must instead always take measures in advance in order
to gain access to the train legitimately, and that once purchased, tickets are valid only on a predetermined
train?

How can passengers whose departure time depends when they complete their business be protected
4.
against unnecessary delays arising from the need to book in advance, against denial of access to a
departing train and against the imposition of fines for failure to obtain in advance a ticket valid at a
particular time?

5. What will the Commission do to ensure that, at least in the case of frequent rail services (those
departing every two hours or more frequently) on routes of up to 750 km, it remains possible to decide
immediately before the departure time to take a particular train, so that travelling by train remains almost
as flexible as the use of a private car and so as to avoid unnecessary prolongation of journeys after the
introduction of high-speed train services?