WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/02 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding of a hydroelectric plant at Anilio in the Prefecture of Ioannina.
Date: 2003-01-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Epirus, environmental law, financial aid, judicial proceedings, operational programme, power plant

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/155

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is reminded that the list of areas eligible under Objective 2 is determined by the
Commission on the basis of each Member State’s proposals.

Novara Province was not eligible under Objective 2 during the programming period ending on
31 December 1999, nor does it appear on the list of eligible Italian areas for the period 2000-2006
decided on by the Commission on 27 July 2000. Under Article 4(11) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1)
this list is valid up to 31 December 2006 but during 2003 can be modified by the Commission in
response to a proposal from Italy occasioned by grave crisis in a region.

However no increase in the coverage of each NUTS II region in population terms is permitted.

Thus any addition of territory in Novara Province to the list of eligible areas would have to be offset by
removal from eligibility of another part of Piedmont Region of equivalent population size.

New areas proposed for Objective 2 eligibility must also meet the criteria set in Article 4(1) to (10) of
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds,

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 161 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/02

by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Funding of a hydroelectric plant at Anilio in the Prefecture of Ioannina

Lakmos Energy Ltd was allocated funding under the second CSF, in particular the Operational Programme
for Energy of the Ministry of Development, to construct a small hydroelectric plant at Anilio in the
Prefecture of Ioannina. However, work was interrupted when the one-member Court of the First Instance
of Ioannina issued a court order, following an appeal
lodged by the inhabitants of Anilio and the
Municipality of Metsovo, who claim that environmental legislation is being violated. A definitive ruling by
the district court of Metsovo is still pending, but the project has already been entered in the third CSF,
notably the Operational Programme for Competitiveness.

Will the Commission say by what precise procedure (invitation to tender or other) the project was entered
in the second and third CSF, what is its overall budget, how funds have been distributed between the two
CSFs and what is the precise percentage of Community, national and private funding for this project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Following a call for tenders launched under the ‘Efficient use of energy’ aid scheme approved by the
Commission, the investment project to which the Honourable Member refers was included in the ‘Energy’
operational programme of
framework for Greece. The total
contractual cost was GRD 388 million, of which 54 % was to be provided by the investor, 23 % by the
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 23 % by the State.

the 1994-1999 Community support

The opening of judicial enquiries entailed the suspension of work on the project. The relevant national
authorities were informed that the project would be deleted from the programme in preparation for its
closure by the Commission.

C 161 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Greece has not yet asked the Commission for the financial closure of this programme. Under the
Community rules on assistance in the period 1994-1999, the Commission must receive the details
required for closure by 31 March 2003.

The project promoter has submitted a new proposal following a call for tenders launched under a new aid
scheme ‘Encouraging private investment in energy’, which was also approved by the Commission. That aid
scheme is part-financed under the ‘Competitiveness’ operational programme of Greece’s Community
support framework for 2000-2006. The total cost of the proposal amounted to EUR 406 134, of which
60 % was to be provided by the investor, 20 % by the Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and 20 % by the
State.

According to the information received by the relevant national authorities, the project has not yet been
included in the operational programme in question.

(2003/C 161 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3864/02

by Joost Lagendijk (Verts/ALE), Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE)
and Heide Rühle (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 January 2003)

Subject: Encryption digital satellite TV channels

On 4 December the Chief Director of the Westdeutsches Fernsehen WDR, Mr Pleitgen, made a plea to lift
any obligation for European Public television channels to encrypt their digital satellite broadcasts for
reception abroad. He argued that ‘this would considerably contribute to cultural exchange and cultural
diversity in Europe’. The President of the German-French cultural channel ARTE, Jobst Plog, made an
appeal ‘to stick forcefully to the principle of a free flow of information.’

Does the European Commission agree with us that the necessary protection of copyrights should not

1.
lead to hindrances in the free flow of information in Europe?

2.
Does the Commission share our opinion that a free flow of information as given by the public
broadcast systems should not be encrypted for the public in a country other than where the programmes
originate?

Does the Commission share our view that such free exchange of information may also contribute to

3.
a better knowledge of foreign languages?

4.
Does the Commission agree that a free access to public broadcasting in a country other than where
the public channel is based also benefits expats of that country and is a contribution to a more flexible
labour market?

5.
Is the Commission willing to contact the relevant competent authorities at national, regional and
European level and investigate whether existing barriers, which originate from the encryption of public
digital channels broadcasting over satellite, or from legal restrictions, can be taken away?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The principle of a free flow of information within the internal market is primarily based on the principles
of the freedom of establishment (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) and the freedom to provide services
(Article 49 of the EC Treaty). In this context, any obstacles to the broadcasting of programmes by public or
private channels across national borders would only be compatible with these principles if they consisted
of appropriate measures justified by a general-interest objective that did not go beyond what is necessary
to protect the general-interest objective concerned (principle of proportionality).