WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/02 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Failure of programme to build marinas in Greece — problems with the tourism subprogramme of the 2nd CSF.
Date: 2002-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Greece, financial management, harbour installation, operational programme, project management

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/139

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

The situation described in the question made by the Honourable Member results from a private
the
relationship between the agricultural cooperatives and their members.
Commission views are that Community law has not been contravened. For further information the
Honourable Member should refer to the Commission’s answers to written questions E-0128/02 from
Mr Alavanos (1) and E-0238/02 from Mr Trakatellis and other (2).

In the circumstances

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 148.
(2) See page 99.

(2002/C 205 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0431/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Failure of programme to build marinas in Greece 4 problems with the ‘tourism’ subprogramme of

the 2nd CSF

As the Commission will be aware, a decision was taken under the ‘tourism’ subprogramme of the 2nd CSF
to build four marinas in Greece (at Zakynthos, Ikaria, Argostoli and Thassos) with the public sector
contributing 18 million euro and the private sector 13 million euro. The works commenced in 1996. One
year after the start (1997), it was thought advisable to carry out a feasibility study, which showed the
works were feasible. Three years after (1999), it was thought in regard to the private sector’s involvement
that the model used up to that point (direct
intervention by EOT 4 the Greek National Tourism
Organisation) should be changed and the services of a financial consultant engaged. The consultant was
appointed, he signed a contract, requested further investment and, although he was required to present the
details of the tenders to be invited from the private sector (for the exploitation of the marinas) by
7 December 2001, he has not yet done so. In the meantime, the only section of the Zakynthos marina
under construction is nowhere near completion and, needless to say, there is no mention of private sector
involvement. On Ikaria, one third of the budget was spent simply pouring concrete into the sea, after
which the project was abandoned. On Thassos, the project was scaled down because of problems with the
fuel tank, the windward jetty, the markings, etc.

1. What does the Commission intend to do to tackle these problems?

2. What is the current situation with regard to the ‘tourism’ subprogramme of the 2nd CSF in Greece?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2002)

The Commission would note first of all that the correct implementation of projects is a matter for the
national authorities.

It is aware of the difficulties encountered in the part-financing of the four marinas mentioned by the
Honourable Member included in the ‘Tourism’ sub-programme of the ‘Tourism and Culture’ operational
programme under the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece in the 1994-1999 programming
period. It has already exchanged correspondence with the Greek authorities about these problems.

As far as the accounts of the ‘Tourism’ sub-programme in the 2nd CSF in Greece are concerned, under
Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93, the date of eligibility of expenditure incurred for projects in the 1994-1999
programming period is 31 December 2001.

The Member States are required to send the final applications for payment and supporting documents for
approval by 30 June 2002.

C 205 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

The last annual report currently available (1998) shows that public expenditure on the ‘Tourism’ sub-
programme in the 1994-1999 programming period amounted to € 45 million, 44 % of total public
expenditure on the programme. Further information provided by the Greek authorities early in 2000 puts
public expenditure at € 61 million, which represents absorption of public expenditure at about 65 %
compared with the last decision to amend the programme, taken on 6 May 2000. The final position with
regard to this sub-programme can only be established on the basis of the closing report from the Greek
authorities, which will give exact figures for the years 1999 to 2001.

This means that the Commission is at present unable check compliance with all the commitments given by
the Greek authorities in respect of these projects, including the completion of works and the concession to
the private sector of the construction of land facilities and the general management of the marinas. It has,
however, asked those authorities to provide it with full information on the implementation of measure 1,1
‘Maritime tourism’ in this operational programme.

(2002/C 205 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0433/02

by Rijk van Dam (EDD) and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Requirement for fishing vessels flying the Belgian flag to have an economic link

By Royal Decree of 3 February 1999, the Belgian Government laid down a requirement for fishing vessels
flying the Belgian flag to have an effective economic link with the coastal region of Belgium. In practice,
this means that either a minimum of 50 % of the crew must come from the Belgian coastal region or a
substantial proportion of the catch must be landed at Belgian ports or sold through Belgian auctions.

The Belgian Government notified the Commission of this decree at the draft stage, and the Commission
approved it, as its provisions accorded with the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the EC
recognising the right of Member States to require that vessels flying their flag should have an ‘effective
economic link’ with the Member State concerned.

On the other hand, the Court of Justice ruled against the imposition of requirements to use local auctions
and to take on local crew members. Moreover, the Commission has taken action against a requirement by
Dutch quota management groups that their members sell their catches at Dutch fish auctions.

In its answer to previous questions (E-2205/00 and P-2236/00) (1), the Commission said that it would keep
Parliament
the above
informed about
requirement. So far (18 months on)
the Commission has not given the European Parliament any
information about how this complaint is being dealt with.

the processing of a complaint by Dutch ship-owners about

1. Why has the Commission failed to do this? What stage has the complaint procedure reached, and
what action does the Commission intend to take as a result of it?

2. What is the Commission’s policy on the imposition of national auction requirements? Does the
Commission differentiate between auction requirements in the light of whether they are imposed
nationally or privately? If so, why, and if not, why are Dutch quota management groups being treated
differently to the Belgian authorities?

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 160.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

The complaint in question was made to the Commission by a group of owners of fishing vessels flying the
Belgian flag. The Commission is still dealing with it.