WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance.
Date: 2002-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, building, engineering structure, management audit, project management, use of aid

C 160 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

For substances in Annex I to the Directive, then Article 10 of the Directive applies. This requires Member
States to give mutual recognition to products evaluated in accordance with the uniform principles and
containing only Annex I active substances, but permits them to impose conditions relating to the health
and safety of workers in accordance with Community law. Further, it allows dietary and environmental,
agricultural and plant health factors to be taken into account. However, where authorisation based on
mutual recognition is refused on these latter grounds, the Commission must be informed and a decision
then taken under the comitology procedures in the Directive to determine whether or not the Member
State was correct to refuse authorisation on the basis of the different circumstances between the Member
State which gave the original authorisation and the Member State where mutual recognition is sought.
Once the Directive is fully applicable (i.e. all active substances in Annex I and uniform principles fully
applied), this means that Member States could not refuse approval except where this is justified by
objective differences.

With the exception of the above case, the Commission does not have the competence to intervene unless
the Directive is not being respected and the Commission has no evidence that this is currently the case.
The question of eventual market distortion could be addressed when the Directive is amended. The
Commission intends to propose such an amendment to the Council and Parliament late in 2002.

(2002/C 160 E/285)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Mistakes and delays in projects despite being covered by a framework fixed in advance

Projects which, for various reasons, are not operative or are judged not to be viable are commonplace in
Greece. Lack of data, mistakes in studies,
incomplete planning and failings in checks carried out by
Commission officials have been noted, all of which have had disastrous results in terms of the economy,
natural resources and the environment. Typical examples are the Egnatia Highway, the sewage treatment
plant at Ermioni, the hydroelectric plant at Ilariona on the River Aliakmonas, the Smokoovo dam, the
tunnels at Mouzaki and Pyli Trikalon, the reservoirs on Kalymnos and Lipsi, the forest village at Xanthi and
the dams in Aitolo-Akarnia and Parthenio, Leros. Reports frequently appear in the Greek press concerning
these projects (e.g. To Vima of 17 February 2002).

Given that management and monitoring have not been carried out in the optimal manner, will the
Commission say:

1. what penalties will be imposed on those responsible and the Community officials who carried out the
relevant checks in view of the large sums invested in projects and constructions which will never
come into operation even though they are finished, such as the Goura bridge and the Metsovo tunnel,
and

2. what measures it has taken or proposes to take in response to the failure to complete the above

projects and the lack of clarity concerning their cost and the timetable for delivery?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.