WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/02 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Community funding of work in the field of the environment and the Natura 2000 network in Greece.
Date: 2002-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU financing arrangements, European Regional Development Fund, Greece, environmental protection, management audit, project management, protected area

C 52 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

government justifies this proposal on the one hand by a series of accidents caused by drunken off-duty
police officers, and on the other by the allegedly over-indulgent and lenient attitude of the ordinary Slovak
courts in disciplining police officers who commit offences, as well as by the courts’ heavy workload.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission’s consider the introduction of military courts’ jurisdiction over Slovak police officers,
on the grounds of the above-mentioned offences committed while off duty, to be compatible with EU law
or with the principles of the rule of law, particularly the rule prohibiting arbitrary action?

What is the Commission’s view of the alleged causal connection between the above-mentioned attitude of
the courts to police officers and the objective of this measure to improve the working of the ordinary
courts? Is it then necessary for such improvements in the justice system to be carried out at the expense of
the police?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission is closely monitoring the measures undertaken by Slovakia in the field of justice and
home affairs, including the judicial system. In the Regular Report for 2001 and the Accession Partnership,
the Commission noted the importance of establishing an efficient system in Slovakia to redress complaints
of police misconduct. In its contacts with the Slovak authorities, the Union has noted the importance it
attaches to ensuring that police officers respect human rights. In this connection, the Commission notes
that article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights lays down the principle of the right to a fair
trial and that the European Court of Human Rights has held repeatedly that civilians must not be tried
before military courts.

Available information indicated that the Slovak government envisaged placing the police force under the
jurisdiction of military courts. The Slovak government intended to include this change in the draft
amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Commission has been informed that the
governmental draft did not find the necessary support in the Slovak Parliament.
In June 2002, the
Parliament adopted the amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, but rejected to approve the above-
mentioned provisions.

Overall, the Commission is of the opinion that (cid:1) despite remaining weaknesses (cid:1) Slovakia has taken
considerable steps to strengthen the independence and efficiency of
inter alia by
implementing the relevant provisions of the constitutional amendment adopted in February 2001. The
Commission will continue to monitor closely developments concerning the handling of complaints against
the police.

the judiciary,

(2003/C 52 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2341/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Subject: Community funding of work in the field of the environment and the Natura 2000 network in

Greece

On the basis of the detailed information which Commissioner Barnier provided in the annex to his answer
to my question (E-0796/02 (1)) on Community funding of projects and work implementing the Natura
2000 network and the EAGGF contribution to environmental protection in Greece:

1. With a view to completing the picture and in the interests of transparency, which natural or legal
persons (ministry responsible, NGOs, administrative bodies, etc.) have received and used Community
funding for work co-financed by the ERDF (OP Environment) and the Life-Natura 2000 programme in
Greece? Can the Commission provide a detailed breakdown for each separate project?

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/155

2. To which precise projects or actions were the GRD 778 217 320 (EUR 2 283 836,6) allocated in
connection with work on the Lagana sea park, Xanthe (cid:1) biotope management project, which was co-
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (operational programme on the environment)
and which was geared to protecting the Caretta-caretta turtle, and which natural or legal persons
(ministry responsible, NGOs, administrative bodies, etc.) received the Community funding concerned?

3. What view will the Commission take of instances of maladministration of Community co-funding for

environmental protection, and how will it guarantee optimum use of Community funds?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (1), responsibility as regards selecting projects eligible for Community
part-financing and as regards monitoring their implementation rests with the national or regional
authorities concerned. The Commission therefore does not hold comprehensive information, which is
supplied only in the event of checks, and would ask the Honourable Member to request that information
from the managing authority for the Environment operational programme (Evritania and Itea Street 2,
11523 Athens, telephone 010-6971700).

The enclosed detailed table on the programmes part-financed under LIFE is being sent
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

to the

The Commission would point out that any irregularity in relation to Community funding, whatever that
funding’s purpose, incurs the penalties provided for by the rules in force. The Regulation referred to above
also provides for enhanced planning, monitoring and control structures to be established with a view to
ensuring the proper use of funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 52 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2342/02

by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Thermal plasmas

According to a number of scientists and in particular the La Roche environmental laboratory, thermal
plasma treatment could be used to process waste (cid:1) including contaminated meal.

Can the Commission Directorate-General for the Environment give its views on such waste processing by
plasma torches?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Commission organises an information exchange between Member States and industry concerned on
best available techniques (BAT) in industrial activities which are covered by the Council Directive 96/61/EC
of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (1). The work is co-
ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau, which is hosted by the Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies of the Joint Research Centre in Seville, Spain.