WRITTEN QUESTION P-2541/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Irregularities involved in the future construction of a regasification plant in the Ria de Ferrol (Spain).
Date: 2002-09-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, civil defence, environmental impact, environmental law, gas industry, industrial hazard, siting of power stations

C 155 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

The Council would like to remind the Honorable MEP that Common Position 2001/931/CFSP, which was
adopted to implement UN Security Council resolution 1373(2001) laying out wide-ranging strategies to
combat terrorism, applies to persons and groups involved in terrorist acts regardless of the place where
those acts have been committed.

In the field of human rights referred to by the Honorable MEP, the Council has recently reiterated in a
declaration on the death penalty and particularly cruel forms of execution its opposition to the death
penalty in general and to execution by stoning in particular.

As regards counter-terrorism, the EU expects Iran to implement fully UNSCR 1373 and to ratify and
implement all relevant UN Conventions. Moreover, the negotiations due to start shortly on a trade and
cooperation agreement with Iran will be accompanied by parallel negotiations on provisions for
cooperation on counter-terrorism. The trade and cooperation agreement and the counter-terrorism
provisions will form an indissociable whole as regards entry into force, application and denunciation.

(2003/C 155 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2538/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 September 2002)

Subject: United effort by EU Member States to support the International Criminal Court by ending the

exemption granted by Romania

Does the Council intend temporarily to suspend the current negotiations with Romania as an applicant
country for accession to the European Union until the latter revokes the agreement recently concluded
with the United States to exempt American citizens from extradition to the International Criminal Court
(ICC) in The Hague, with a view to clearly demonstrating to the whole world and in particular to other
applicant countries that there can be no doubt as to the united will of the European Union to enable the
ICC to fulfil its function fully, unimpeded and without privileges being enjoyed by any state?

Reply

(3 March 2003)

The Council is aware that on 1 August 2002 Romania signed an agreement with the United States on this
matter, ratification of which is pending. While stressing that Romania has the right as a sovereign State to
sign any such agreement, the Council draws attention to its Common Position on the International
Criminal Court of 11 June 2001, as amended on 20 June 2002, on which Romania has aligned itself. The
Council also invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to refer to the conclusions it agreed upon on this
matter on 30 September 2002. The Council expects Romania to comply with the obligations it assumed
when it endorsed the Statute of the International Criminal Court and to take account of the EU position
with regard to ratification.

(2003/C 155 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2541/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Irregularities involved in the future construction of a regasification plant in the Ria de Ferrol

(Spain)

Is the Commission aware that, despite the accidents in Toulouse and Enschede the firm Reganosa (cid:1) with
the municipal authorities responsible for the policy of allocating and using land,
the approval of

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/31

and contrary to the Seveso Directive and Spanish legislation setting the minimum safety distance at
2 000 metres (cid:1) is planning to build a storage and regasification plant for LNG in a place where (cid:1) within
a radius of 2000 metres (cid:1) there is a population of more than 40 000 and the point of manoeuvre
envisaged for the tankers which will supply the plant with methane is barely 500 metres from the Ferrol
naval base with its arsenals and warships?

Is the Commission also aware that the regasification plant has not been the subject of an environmental
impact assessment in accordance with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2), merely of a decision on
the environmental effects issued by the Galician regional government, which has a 10 % holding in the
firm involved?

Has the Commission contacted the Spanish Government to request detailed information on this matter?
What information has the Spanish Government supplied?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2003/C 155 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2555/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Safety hazards relating to the regasification plant planned for the Ferrol estuary

A number of citizens’ organisations submitted a complaint (2001/5221 SG (2001) a/13049) to the
Commission on 5 November 2001 alleging several instances of failure on the part of the Kingdom of
Spain to comply with Community legislation in its handling and granting of the necessary permits for
constructing a natural liquid gas regasification plant in the Ferrol estuary (La Coruña district).

The Spanish government’s authorisation for the project was published in the Official State Bulletin on
24 July 2002, with the condition that authorisation was dependent on all security requirements being met
subsequently. The Ferrol town council has recently reassessed authorisation for the plant as being of
potential danger to the population in its planned location.

The project has understandably caused alarm in the area, given the inherently dangerous nature of the
plant’s projected activities, and in view of the fact that the development company has not fulfilled the
in particular as regards maintaining minimum distances from
requirements of the Seveso Directive,
residential centres and observing safety rules relating to the handling and docking of the plant’s methane
carriers. Another cause for concern has been the lack of any environmental impact study in accordance
with Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/EC (2).

Is the Commission aware that the Reganosa development company’s proposed plant does not comply with
European and international safety rules for regasification plants and related ports?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2541/02 and E-2555/02
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission is aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member.

Following parliamentary questions E-1310/01 by Mrs McKenna, E-1359/01 by Mrs Gonzalez Alvarez and
E-1379/01 by the Honourable Member (1), the Commission decided to open an own-initiative case,
registered as number 2001/2141.