WRITTEN QUESTION P-1492/02 by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Administrative capacity of competition authority in Estonia.
Date: 2002-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Estonia, Luxembourg, competition policy, public administration, size of business

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/111

What is the Commission’s assessment of the environmental impact of using funds from the European
Investment Bank (EIB) and ISPA allocated for such large-scale regional development projects in central and
eastern Europe? Can the Commission give assurances that
those funds are not financing candidate
countries’ projects which are at odds with present EC environmental directives? Can it also restate the
action taken in the event of failure to comply with those directives, and to make good the damage caused,
in the environment field?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to refer to its answer to written question E-1032/02
by Mrs Lynne (1) concerning Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
birds (2) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora (3) and their impact on pre-accession financing.

In cases where the Instrument for Structural Policy for Pre-Accession (ISPA) funding is involved for large
infrastructure developments, similar standards to those set by Community environmental legislation need
to be applied before any co-financing can be granted to the candidate countries. This involves, inter alia,
the application of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (4). In addition, the
applicant country will also have to investigate whether environmentally sensitive areas are affected which
might fall in future under the protection of the two Directives previously mentioned.

As far as the assessment of the environmental impact of projects co-financed by the European Investment
Bank (EIB) is concerned, similar standards as those set by the Community environmental legislation have to
be applied and the Commission follows the environmental aspects before the loans are approved by the
EIB. This also applies to the Directives mentioned above.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 75.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 28 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1492/02

by Gunilla Carlsson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 May 2002)

Subject: Administrative capacity of competition authority in Estonia

The Commission has indicated on a number of occasions that Estonia’s administrative capacity is not
totally adequate.

Does the Commission know how many civil servants are dealing with matters concerning competition at
the competition authorities in Luxembourg and in Estonia?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 2002)

In the latest Regular Report on Estonia’s Progress Towards Accession, published on 13 November 2001 (1),
the Commission stated that:

The Competition Board is a fully independent authority and has sufficient resources and expertise in
place.

C 28 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Estonian Competition Board employs 42 civil servants, including 13 lawyers.

A comparison with Member States is not relevant in view of the present legal framework: Under the rules
for the implementation of Article 63(1)(i),
the Europe Agreement establishing an
association between the Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of
Estonia, of the other part, it is explicitly stated that cases falling under Article 63(1) and (2) of the Europe
Agreement are dealt with by the Commission on the Community side and the Competition Board on the
Estonian side. Inside the Community, on the other hand, Member States do not at present have a legal
obligation to have national competition authorities (although most of them have found it useful to
establish such an authority).

(1)(ii) and (2) of

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.

(2003/C 28 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1493/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Biological sewage treatment plants in Greece

(29 May 2002)

The Commission recently took the decision to bring proceedings against Greece in the Court of Justice for
its failure to observe the final deadline for setting up a third-generation sewage treatment plant in the
region of Elefsina. The final deadline expired in 1998(!). The proceedings could also involve a further
11 areas in the vicinity of sensitive ecosystems which have not observed Community directives or binding
dates. More precisely, according to reports in the Greek press, since 1998 tertiary treatment plants should
have been completed in 16 Greek towns with populations of over 10 000 in sensitive areas. However, the
number of towns which complied with the directive was only four (!), while the Greek authorities justify
themselves by saying that the degree of compliance in 1998 was equally low in other Member States … At
the present time, four years later, 12 tertiary biological treatment plants have been completed in Greece in
areas in the close vicinity of sensitive outfall points (such as the Gulf of Arta, the Lefkada straits, etc.),
while the other four plants, at Thriasio, Grevena, Kilkis and Thiva, remain unfinished.
In fact, the
construction of the plant at Thriasio is still at the drawing-board stage!

There are, however, also problems associated with the monitoring of the operation of the plants by the
central administration or the local authorities which, according to a study carried out by Athens
University, has left 30 % of the plants facing serious operational problems (e.g. inadequate maintenance,
shortages of consumables, unrepresentative sampling etc.). According to the same study,
in many
instances, the sewage treatment plants were never operational, an example being Serifos where the plant
was completed in 1994 with Community and national funding, but is not in operation because of mistakes
in the planning of the project.

Is the Commission familiar with this matter and what are its views thereon? Which of the above projects
received funding and what were the exact amounts? Is it possible that further action will be taken against
Greece in the Court of Justice for the other delays in building biological sewage treatment plants which
should have been completed since 1998, as referred to above? If so, which projects by name? Does the
Commission intend to intercede with the Greek authorities and in what manner to persuade them to put
an end to these enormous delays in building biological sewage treatment plants and the failure of the local
authorities to monitor and check on their operation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 July 2002)

The Commission is following the implementation process of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May
1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1)
In this
context, the Commission has already initiated three individual infringement procedures against Greece for
failure to comply with this Directive. These infringements concern the municipalities of Athens, Elefsina
and Thessaloniki. Further investigations, with the view to assessing that the provisions and the deadlines
are implemented, are underway. The Commission will not hesitate to take all the necessary measures,
including action under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure that Community legislation is
correctly applied.

in all the Member States,

including Greece.