WRITTEN QUESTION P-3596/01 by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Environmental problem in the Prima Cala area in Molfetta.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Apulia, application of EU law, building regulations, coastal region, environmental impact, environmental protection, project evaluation, protected area

C 147 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Finally, the potential application of Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty (abuse of a dominant
position) would require the analysis of various factors. First, for each product concerned, the relevant
market should be defined following the principles set out in the case law of the European Courts and in
the Commission’s practice in antitrust cases. Then it should be assessed whether or not Pfizer is dominant
in this (these) relevant market(s). Only in those cases where Pfizer was dominant could the Commission
assess the existence of any abuse. On the basis of the available information, the Commission is not in a
position to conclude on any of these issues, even on a provisional basis.

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2002/C 147 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3596/01

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Environmental problem in the Prima Cala area in Molfetta

There have been numerous reports in the local and national press and many complaints from alarmed
residents about a ‘serious’ environmental problem following the building of the Scoglio di Inghilterra lido
in the Prima Cala area of the town of Molfetta.

According to the information available, the construction of this bathing beach complex involved the
extensive 6 and, indeed, excessive 6 use of concrete, which has totally disfigured the area, robbing it of its
natural features.

This situation has been brought to the notice of the local authorities and the harbour master’s office, who
are responsible for the area, but no action has been taken to repair the damage caused.

Given the above, would the Commission carry out an in-depth investigation into the matter with a view to
determining once and for all whether all the relevant environmental and legal requirements were met
when planning permission was granted?

Furthermore, with a view to monitoring the situation along Italy’s coastline, would it not agree that an
inventory should be made of all areas where the excessive use of concrete remains a problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

According to Article 2 of 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) (EIA) and Council Directive 97/11/EC of
3 March 1997 (2) which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that,
before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia,
of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an
assessment with regard to their effects. Classes of projects relevant to the directive are defined in Article 4
and listed in the first two annexes. However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable
Member, it is not possible to assess whether the project mentioned by the Honourable Member falls within
one of the classes listed in the annexes of the directive.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (3) provides that measures are taken to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status,
natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. These measures are to be
applied within the special areas of conservation included in the network set up under the title Natura
2000, as identified in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4. However, on the basis of the
information given by the Honourable Member it appears that the project mentioned by the Honourable
Member does not fall within any relevant area under the Directive.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/207

Therefore, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, due to a lack of grounds of
complaint on the application of Community environmental law, no breach can be identified at present.
Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the
situation with reference to Community law, the Commission would be able to investigate the matter
further.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 147 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3597/01

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(9 January 2002)

Subject: So-called ‘troublemaker letters’ from the police to persons deemed likely to take part in protests

against the Laeken Summit

According to media reports, e.g. in the issue of the Berliner Zeitung of 10 December 2001, during the first
half of December, in the run-up to the Laeken Summit, persons in a number of German Länder deemed
likely to take part in protests against the summit were warned not to leave the country or even prevented
from so doing. For example, in Baden-Württemburg individuals were banned from leaving the country and
required to report to the police, and in Berlin passports and identity cards were withdrawn.

In Göttingen, the police sent persons presumed to be anti-EU protesters a document headed ‘troublemaker
letter’. The letter urges the recipient not to take part in ‘demonstration-like events’ during the period from
13 to 15 December 2001, stating that only in this way could the person concerned avoid police measures
in the context of risk prevention (up to and including a ban on crossing into Belgium from Germany) or
criminal proceedings in response to offences committed during such events. The Göttingen police
authority referred to a file on violent offenders, set up in November 2000, as the basis for the measures.

In the light of previous answers to Members’ questions, it should be pointed out that the protests were to
take place in connection with an EU Summit. Since there is no such thing as a European police force, the
relevant police measures are carried out by national or regional forces.

Should the Council not feel responsible for the issues raised below, could it please give reasons in each
case:

6 Is the Council aware of the legal basis which the German authorities have used in setting up this file

which clearly includes details of persons who must be regarded as innocent of any offence?

6 What view does the Council

fundamental rights, which
represents, for example, a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
Articles 11 and 12 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

this restriction on individuals’

take of

6 This practice prevents people from exercising their fundamental rights as European citizens. What

steps does the Council plan to take in order to put a stop to this practice?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that it is not for the Council to take a
position in respect to individual measures taken by the law enforcement authorities in the Member States.
The Council is equally not in a position to determine on which national legal rules Member States have
based certain law enforcement measures.