WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Bypass in the region of Pirgoi Thermis, Lesbos.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Greece, administrative check, countryside conservation, engineering structure, environmental impact, road building

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/53

The Commission has already initiated three individual infringement procedures against Greece for
3.
failure to comply with Council Directive 91/271/EEC. These infringements concern the cities of Athens,
Elefsina and Thessaloniki.

The Commission continues to follow the implementation process in all Member States, including Greece. It
will take all necessary measures, including action under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, to ensure that the
provisions of the Directive 91/271/EEC are applied.

(1) COM(2001) 685 final.

(2002/C 205 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3676/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Bypass in the region of Pirgoi Thermis, Lesbos

(17 January 2002)

In the rural area of Pirgoi Thermis, a new bypass has been opened which links to the ‘old’ road by means
of a vast interchange built by improvising a succession of changes to the original plans. The bypass and
the interchange involved huge excavation of earth which was removed by thousands of trucks and then
replaced with soil brought in from distant sites. Furthermore, the interchange and the bypass have been
elevated up to 1,60 metres above natural ground level and the link with and extension of the old road by
erecting walls which also required further expensive landfill. The construction is reminiscent of a fortress
wall and is the butt of the local community’s scorn and indignation. Finally, the general destruction of the
natural, historical and architectural environment gives the impression of a completely arbitrary and
improvised work of construction.

Since these works are financed by the Community Support Framework, will the Commission say:

1. whether the vast expense of these works is justified by the actual need for a road link in the area,

2. whether the alterations to the original plans and (probably arbitrary) departures therefrom have been

checked and approved,

3. whether a final environmental impact assessment has been carried out with provision for lighting and

draining of rainwater after the construction of the fortress wall-cum-road,

4. whether the Commission has been kept informed from the start through to completion of the works

on compliance with national and Community law, and

5. whether there will be on-site inspection of the works before they are taken over by the client?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2002)

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member was co-financed by the European Regional
Development Fund under the Community Initiative (CI) Interreg, during the programming period 1994-
1999.

According to the information received from the Greek authorities:

1.

the proposal for this project, including its physical and economic scope and information regarding the
approval by the Greek authorities of all necessary studies (such as the environmental
impact
assessment study and the approved environmental terms), were submitted, as provided by procedural
rules, to the CI Monitoring Committee.

C 205 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Following an appropriate examination during which, among others things, the cost of the project and
the development needs of the area of the project were examined, the proposal was adopted officially
by the Monitoring Committee during its 1st meeting, on 8 December 1995, with a budget of € 5 664
million. During its 3rd meeting, on 15 September 1999, following a proper hearing and examination
of all facts and supporting documents, the Monitoring Committee approved the final budget of the
project at the amount of € 7 769 million. The physical scope of the project was not reduced. The
Community share of the total cost of the project is 75 %.

2. A whole series of controls was carried out by the Greek authorities, as provided for by the Greek

legislation on public works.

3. The environmental studies and environmental terms are not examined by the Commission, unless a
specific reason occurs (i.e. complaint). Thus in this particular case, no examination of the details of the
environmental study has been carried out, nor has a supplementary environmental study been
provided. If evidence is brought of non compliance with the environmental terms or of insufficient
environmental protection further to expansion of the project, the Commission could examine the case
in more detail.

4. The Commission was a member and participated in the works of the CI Monitoring Committee.
During the official meetings, it received information on the progress of the implementation of the
projects. According to this information, the preparation and execution of this project complied with
Community and national law.

5. Any control before the final delivery of the project is the competence and responsibility of the
national authorities. Financial and on-site controls by the Community of co-financed projects are
being performed through procedures provided for in the Structural Funds’ Regulations (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down
provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards co-ordination of the activities of the different
Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
existing financial
instruments, OJ L 193, 31.7.1993; Council Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93 of 20 July 1993
amending Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as
regards the European Regional Development Fund, OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2002/C 205 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3698/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus

Following the latest presidential election in Belarus, in September 2001, the situation as regards political
democracy there can only be described as disastrous. Belarus is the only blank space on the map of Europe
where, from a formal point of view, there is no political democracy with free elections, freedom of
expression and freedom of the press.

How does the Council assess the situation in Belarus now, and how can the European Union support the
development of the opposition’s democratic role in forming opinions in Belarus?

Reply

(13 May 2002)

1.
The Council remains seriously concerned at the situation in Belarus. The Presidential elections last
September were not held according to OSCE norms and standards. Numerous irregularities concerning the
treatment of the opposition, independent media and NGOs were noted. In addition, Mr Lukashenko has
been increasing pressure on the opposition since the elections and a number of leading personalities in
Belarus have been imprisoned.