WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of cultural monuments and the construction of a hydroelectric power station on the River Arachthos.
Date: 2002-07-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, heritage protection, hydroelectric development, siting of power stations

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/149

While these enforcement figures seem impressive, their number is still very low compared to the actual
traffic flows. As announced in the Commission White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time
to decide (2), the Commission is currently preparing proposals for measures to improve enforcement of
road safety at Union level. The results of the Tispol enforcement actions will be taken into account in this
work.

(1) Namely Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Finland, United Kingdom, Norway, Slovenia

and Switzerland.
(2) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 52 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2286/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Protection of cultural monuments and the construction of a hydroelectric power station on the

River Arachthos

It is planned to build a hydroelectric power station at Aghios Nikolaos on the River Arachthos which is
protected by Directive 92/43/EC (1) on the protection of natural habitats, and this has alarmed local
inhabitants and environmental organisations. They are particularly concerned about
the possible
destruction of historical and cultural monuments in the region and, above all, the historic ‘Plaka’ bridge.
These fears have been exacerbated by information that, in order to receive the necessary authorisation, the
construction firm which undertook the project submitted a topographical map on which the site of the
traditional ‘Plaka’ bridge is located one kilometre further north than its actual location, at a point where
the water level will be 8 metres lower.

Can the Commission confirm the accuracy of the environmental impact assessments?

Can it assure local inhabitants that the cultural monuments and the above bridge in particular will not be
affected?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission, following written question P-3174/01 by Mr Averoff (1) has sent a letter to the Greek
authorities asking information regarding three hydroelectric projects in the region of Ipiros. One of the
projects concerned was aiming to create a hydroelectric plant in the area of Agios Nikolaos (Arachthos).
In particular, the Commission has addressed the issue of compliance with Council Directive 92/43/CEE of
21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) and the respect of
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (3), as modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4).

The Greek authorities have provided a reply to the above questions and currently the Commission is
examining in detail the information received, with a view to assessing whether the installations in question
would have a negative effect on the environment.

Concerning the hydroelectric plant in the site of Agios Nikolaos (Arachthos), the Greek authorities have
confirmed that the project has not yet been approved. In fact, a study on the ‘Pre-approval of Localisation
of the hydroelectric installation’ has been submitted by the company and is currently under examination
by the competent national authorities.
If a Decision of Pre-approval of Localisation is taken, an
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) study has to be prepared. The EIA of the project needs to
identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner the direct and indirect effects of the project, among
other factors, on the cultural heritage.

C 52 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Greek authorities are responsible for examining the content and the accuracy of information contained
in all these studies. The Commission,
in the framework of its competencies, will take all necessary
measures to ensure that the above mentioned Community environmental legislation has been respected.

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 52 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2308/02

by Erika Mann (PSE) to the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Subject: Mandatory data retention

According to the views of European Data Protection Commissioners, mandatory data retention as adopted
recently in the EP constitutes a clear change from the current practice whereby operators cooperate with
law enforcement agencies on a case-by-case and individual basis following an authorisation or warrant.

How does the European Commission evaluate the impact of general mandatory data retention on user
confidence in electronic communications?

Does the European Commission think that a Data Retention Regulation could provide the essential legal
framework? If so, when would the European Commission propose it?

How will the European Commission address the liability implications of data retention for communications
companies, should data be misused or in instances where data that is forwarded to LEAs turns out to be
wrong and leads to misinterpretation and even wrong judgments?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the behalf the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The new Directive 2002/58/EC on the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the
electronic communications sector was adopted by the Parliament and the Council on 12 July 2002 (1). The
Directive (Article 15.1) allows Member States to adopt legislative measures to restrict the scope of some
rights and obligations it provides for insofar as such restriction constitutes measures that are necessary
within a democratic society to safeguard national security, public security, defence and for the prevention,
investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences. These measures must be fully compatible
with the European Convention on Human Rights and other general principles of Community law. The
Directive mentions data retention measures as a possible example of such restricting measures. However,
this reference does not constitute a requirement for mandatory national traffic data retention measures.

If a Member State does propose regulatory measures on traffic data retention on the grounds mentioned in
Article 15.1 of the Directive, they will be examined by the Commission for conformance to the data
protection Directives and more generally to Community law. Of special concern in any such examination
will be the effects of these measures on electronic communications sector, including user confidence, and
on the functioning of the single market.

A possible Community legislative instrument to regulate mandatory traffic data retention could take two
forms, depending on its legal basis and objective. The effect would be different in the two cases. A third
pillar instrument (under Title VI of the Treaty on the European Union) with the objective of improving
police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters would probably tend to require all Member States to