WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/02 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Greek fuel reserves.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, energy storage, exchange of information, petroleum product, report

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/125

(2003/C 155 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3275/02

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Greek fuel reserves

The news bulletin Agence Europe (No 8320 of 17 October 2002) reports that the Commission has
decided to ask Greece to bring its fuel reserves into line with the level
laid down by Community
legislation, which provides for reserves of at least 90 days.

The same report states that for 11 out of 12 months in 2001, Greek petrol reserves were below the above
level, as were reserves of liquid gas and kerosene for 8 out of 12 months in the same year. It is also
noteworthy that Greece has not forwarded to the Commission its annual report on its reserves for 2002.

Is the above information correct? How did Greece justify the situation of its fuel reserves in 2001? Which
other countries did not fulfil their obligations in this respect? In the Commission’s view, what are the
prospects for its proposal for minimum reserves of 120 days instead of the current 90 and, in the event
that Member States fail to comply, how can the Commission enforce it?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 2002)

The Commission did indeed decide, on 16 October 2002, to ask Greece in all due form to comply with
EU legislation requiring Member States to maintain at all times stocks equivalent to at least 90 days’
consumption for three categories of oil products.

The precise data available on the level of stocks in Greece are as follows. During 2000, the level of product
category I stocks (petrol) in Greece was below the compulsory 90-day minimum for 10 months out of 12.
As far as category II (middle distillates such as gas oil and kerosene) is concerned, the level of stocks was
below the compulsory 90-day minimum for 8 months out of 12. During 2001, Greece was in breach
11 months out of 12 in respect of category I and 2 months out of 12 in respect of category II.

Greece has never provided any hard facts to justify this situation.

On 18 November 2002 it provided the Commission with the relevant data on the level of stocks for the
first half of 2002. Normally, such data should be submitted on a monthly basis at the latest by the 25th
day of the second month after the month to be reported. According to these data, Greece has complied
with its storage obligations during this period. The Commission will continue to monitor closely the state
of stocks in Greece so as to be able to verify that a structural solution has indeed been found to ensuring
continuous compliance with the minimum level of 90 days per product category and that these latest data
are not simply the result of cyclical fluctuations.

No Member State has experienced a situation comparable to that experienced by Greece. However, two
other Member States (Belgium and Portugal) recently fell slightly below the 90-day level for one product
category (middle distillates) and were informally requested by the Commission to take steps to remedy this
situation. Failing swift action to redress the balance,
launch an infringement
procedure against these Member States.

the Commission will

So far, neither the Council nor Parliament have embarked on discussions of these proposals.

C 155 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

In the event of failure by the Member States to comply with EU legislation on minimum stocks, the
Commission may launch the infringement procedure provided for under Article 226 of the EC Treaty. (In
this particular instance involving Greece,
took the form of a reasoned
opinion, i.e. the second stage in the infringement procedure provided for under Article 226.) Where a
reasoned opinion fails to evoke a satisfactory response together with action by the Member State
concerned, the Commission may refer the matter to the Court of Justice.

the abovementioned request

(2003/C 155 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3278/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Interreg III: objective disparities between Puglia-Albania and Albania-Greece programmes

Under the Interreg III A programme the following cooperation programmes have been approved:

A. Puglia-Albania, funding of EUR 33 million; the programme is a consolidation of the measures taken
under Interreg II, which amounted to EUR 81,5 million; it concerns a total area of 38 486 km2 and,
according to the Commission, a population of 6,2 million, of whom 2,8 million live in Italy and
approximately 3,4 million in Albania;

B. Greece-Albania, funding of EUR 90 million, including EUR 70,4 million essentially designed to set up
a real and well guarded border between the two countries; the programme concerns a population of
1,4 million,
including 900 000 Greeks and 500 000 Albanians, who live in two extremely poor
regions situated on either side of the border.

Quite apart from such aspects as the financial quotas set for each Member State, the size of territory, the
number of inhabitants concerned and the standard of living in the areas in question, the border issue, in
terms of security and actual movement of illegal immigrants from Albania to the European Union, involves
almost exclusively the landing of vessels on the Puglia region’s coasts.

The Puglia region’s repeated efforts over the years to contribute to the development of Albania are
unequalled in the Union, apart from the Community’s own contributions. The intensity and quality of its
institutional relations and its contribution to the improvement of public administration are well known.
Moreover, with the ‘Fiera del Levante’ organisation, it has promoted an annual trade fair in Tirana. The
fourth fair, which took place in May 2002, was attended by 303 operators and over 40 000 visitors
coming not only from Puglia, but also from Montenegro, Macedonia, Greece, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia,
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey.

in
Does the Commission not consider that measures should be taken to provide further investment,
addition to the scheduled programmes, which will ensure adequate development of Albania and thus act as
a deterrent against mass emigration across the Adriatic to the European Union and illegal landings on the
Puglia coastline?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Within the limits of the funds allocated to them, the Member States themselves have defined the financial
allocation for each Interreg III programme in which they participate, including therefore those involving
Greece, Italy and Albania.

Albania, with the other Balkan countries, will also participate in a new Interreg programme (Interreg IIIA
‘Italy-Adriatic’), which is now being approved, and will receive a Community contribution totalling
EUR 50.5 million. It should be noted that, while projects part-financed under Interreg programmes must
be located within the Union, they must have a clear impact on the non-member countries concerned.