WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Projects affecting the Neda river valley.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing, Greece, application of EU law, degradation of the environment, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, road building

C 309 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The suggestion that the amounts were ‘unlawful’ and that they should be repaid ignores the plain principle
of parallelism in the Regulation. It also implies that the Honourable Member thinks that approval of the
budget has no meaning. The Commission is surprised that a Member of the European Parliament, part of
the budgetary authority, should take such a view.

It follows from all of the above that the Commission has not misled Parliament since 1998 or before
1998, that the amounts have always been legally paid, that there is no valid reason for them to be repaid,
and no justification for listing Commissioners or Members of other Institutions who have made the
manifestly legal transfers.

As the Honourable Member has previously been informed, the relevant Institutions will review the
weighted transfer issue and examine the question of whether, for clarification, an explicit legal base should
be developed to relate specifically to Members of the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of
Auditors.

If, as a result of these deliberations, a decision was made to propose a specific legal base the proposal
would, of course, have to come from the Council and not from the Commission since the Commission
does not make proposals for adapting arrangements relating to the remuneration of its Members or the
Members of other Institutions.

(1) See for example Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 840/95 of 10 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC,
Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 determining the emoluments of the members of the Court of Auditors, OJ L 85,
19.4.1995.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 1084/92 of 28 April 1992 amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No
5/67/Euratom determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission, of the President,
Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Member and Registrar of the
Court of First Instance, and Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 determining the emoluments of the
Members of the Court of Auditors, OJ L 117, 1.5.1992.

(2002/C 309 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Environmental damage to the Neda river valley in Greece

(24 June 2002)

In the Figaleia-Platania area on the boundary between the prefectures of Ilia and Messinia in Greece, works
are being carried out on construction of a road linking the two prefectures which are having a serious
environmental impact on the Neda river valley, as evidenced in the past by a survey carried out by the
Ministry of the Environmental, Regional Planning and Public Works, the findings of which are contained in
its report to the Peloponnisos regional authorities (No 119900/3.11.2000). Unfortunately no measures
have been taken to date to protect the environment of this area and construction work is continuing to
endanger the river ecosystem.

What measures will the Commission take to protect the environment in this area?

(2002/C 309 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Projects affecting the Neda river valley

(24 June 2002)

Allegations have recently been made by local authorities and individual residents in the prefecture of
Messinia concerning sand and gravel extraction in the Neda river valley and the dumping of rubble from
nearby roadworks for the second phase of the Messinia provincial highway No 29 (Sidirokastro-Avlona-
Platania-prefectoral boundary section), which are having a serious impact on the environment and
biodiversity of the area.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/167

Given that the project is receiving EU funding, can the Commission say to what extent it is in accordance
with European environmental law and whether an environmental impact assessment has been carried out
in this regard?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1808/02 and E-1809/02
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The competent national or
programmes part-financed by the Structural Funds.

regional authorities are responsible for choosing projects under

the

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, when the project in question was
included in the Peloponnese Operational Programme under the second Community support framework
(1994-1999), the Greek Ministry of the Environment exempted the prefecture of Messinia from the
impact study. This exemption was subject to a number of
requirement to conduct an environmental
binding conditions on environmental protection that were clearly notified to the final beneficiary.

During project implementation, both the above Ministry and the regional authorities undertook a series of
checks and on-the-spot visits to ensure that these conditions were being complied with, among other
things.

The checks found that the conditions had not been satisfactorily met. So, in January 2001 the authority
responsible for implementing the programme had the works in question stopped and asked the contractor
to conduct a number of additional studies that would serve as a technical basis for completing the work
and restoring the site.

(2002/C 309 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: EU driving licence

Has the Commission considered instigating an EU driving licence, alleviating the problems caused by
different national legislation across the EU?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2002)

On the subject of driving licences, the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to
Council Directive 91/439/EEC (1), which entered into force on 1 July 1996. The Directive provides for the
mutual recognition of all driving licences issued in the Member States. However, some differences between
the national laws do exist as the principle of mutual recognition is explicitly limited in Article 1(3) of the
Directive, which states that Member States may apply their national rules on periods of validity of licences
and the intervals at which medical checks must be carried out.

Since the Member States are still responsible for determining the period of validity, the rules are not the
same throughout the European Union and this creates an unclear situation for its citizens. The fact that the
period of validity is not always linked to the regular medical checks contributes to this complexity and this
has been recognised by the Court of Justice (2).

The Commission is currently considering the advisability of preparing a proposal for a Directive amending
Directive 91/439/EEC to remedy this situation, with utmost regard for the principle of subsidiarity.