WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Adder conservation area on the island of Milos: the protection of public health and violation of environmental legislation.
Date: 2003-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Southern Aegean, biotope, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU), nature reserve, project evaluation, protected area, protection of animal life, public health, reptile

C 268 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

In December 2000 a survey was undertaken by Eurosurveillance (bulletin subsidised by the Commission)
on current surveillance policies on antibiotic resistance in the Community (2). This survey, by means of
questionnaires completed by public health authorities in the 15 Member States, revealed that most
countries issued national guidelines specifically devoted to prevention of hospital-acquired infections (like
MRSA), but the survey does not provide details on the content of policies to prevent the spread of MRSA.

However, the Council Recommendation on the prudent use of antimicrobial agents in human medicine (3),
is designed to ensure that specific strategies to contain antimicrobial resistance are implemented at national
level. The Recommendation requires Member States to report to the Commission on its implementation at
the latest by November 2003. These reports will provide details of national policies.

2.
The same Council Recommendation charges the Commission with the task of supporting Member
States’ efforts to contain antimicrobial resistance through the Community Network on the epidemiological
surveillance and control of communicable diseases. The Council Recommendation and the ‘Community
strategy against Antimicrobial Resistance (4)’ provide the basis for further Community action that the
Commission is taking forward with the Member States.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty stresses that Member
States retain responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

Under the new public health programme antimicrobial resistance,

is of high
3.
priority. In the 2003 workplan priority is given to projects which will develop principles and guidelines
for best practise on prudent antimicrobial use. Another priority in the workplan is to support information
exchange and co-ordination of education and intervention programmes aimed at the community and
hospitals.

including MRSA,

(1) EARSS management team, advisory board and national representatives. EARSS Annual Report 2001. Bilthoven, the

Netherlands, July 2002. Pages 95. ISBN-number: 90-6960-098-6. Available at www.earss.rivm.nl.

(2) Therre H. National policies for preventing antimicrobial resistance (cid:1) the situation in 17 European countries in late

2000. Eurosurveillance 2001; 6: 5-14.

(3) OJ L 34, 5.2.2002.
(4) Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the commission on a community strategy against

antimicrobial resistance. COM(2001) 333 final.

(2003/C 268 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject: Adder conservation area on the island of Milos: the protection of public health and violation of

environmental legislation

Local bodies and professional associations on the island of Milos have condemned a plan to create an
adder conservation area on Milos in violation of Community legislation; this plan is based on a special
environmental study entitled the ‘Milos adder habitat programme’. They are also protesting at the fact that
this poisonous snake which is not an endangered species in Greece would constitute a public health risk.
They are particularly concerned that the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and notably Article 6, paragraph 3, have not been respected.
This Article states that ‘the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after
having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and … after having
obtained the opinion of the general public.’ Moreover, on the basis of the study in question it has been
proposed that a presidential decree be issued providing that the snake conservation area should cover 60 %
of the surface of the island. Given the public health threat that would result from this scheme and the fact
that other species of snake which are non-indigenous would also be introduced on Milos without controls,
this represents a violation of the content of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Natura 2000 network and
distortion of their objectives.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/77

1. What measures does the Commission intend to take to address, firstly, the violation of the Directive
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora and the Natura 2000 network, given
that specific provisions thereof have been breached in the procedure for the creation of an adder
conservation area on the island of Milos and, secondly, the violation of the provisions of the Directive in
question through the introduction of non-indigenous snakes?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to address the dangers and public health risks
on the island of Milos, particularly in inhabited areas, that would result from the creation of an adder
conservation area covering 60 % of the island and the uncontrolled introduction of other non-indigenous
snakes?

3. Which projects or studies have been co-funded by the Community or proposed for the creation of an
adder conservation area on Milos, and how will the Commission generally address the phenomenon of the
since
‘maladministration’ of Community funding of environmental protection projects and plans,
disproportionate protection measures (for instance, converting 60 % of the surface of the island of Milos
into an adder conservation area) represent a distortion of the objectives and content of Directive 92/43/
EEC and the Natura 2000 network?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Endemic to Greece, Vipera schweizeri is listed in Annex II to Directive 92/43/EEC (1) as a priority
1.
species, and in Annex IV thereto as a species of Community interest in need of strict protection. Vipera
schweizeri
is endangered at international level, as its presence has only been confirmed on four small
islands of the Western Cyclades. 90 % of the population is concentrated on the island of Milos, particularly
in the west, in a sparsely inhabited area where the natural environment is largely untouched and provides
an excellent habitat.

When it proposed its national list for the Natura 2000 network, Greece proposed three sites for the
protection of this species: one on Milos (West Coast (cid:1) code GR422005), one on Kimolos (Nisos
Polyaigos-Kimolos (cid:1) code GR4220006) and one on Siphnos (Siphnos-Prophitis Ilias (cid:1) code GR4220008).
At the last Mediterranean biogeographical seminar held in Brussels (29-31 January 2003) the species was
deemed to be sufficiently represented. However, scientific reservations were expressed requiring Greece to
give further consideration to site delimitation and the presence of the species on the Prophitis Ilias site on
Milos (code GR4220020), initially included in the Greek list of proposed sites of Community importance.

Further to a complaint received in April 2000 reporting that the Milos vipers were not being properly
protected, especially from the dangers of extractive operations, the Commission launched an enquiry. The
information provided by Greece shows that a specific environmental study, intended to determine the most
appropriate boundaries for the Natura 2000 sites on the island, has been carried out. Once approved, this
management plan should result in the creation of a system of complete and effective protection for the
species and its habitats, the components being the plan itself, a presidential decree on the protection of the
species and its habitats and a management authority set up to implement the provisions of the legal
framework.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission does not consider that Greece has taken all the
measures required to establish and implement an effective system of strict protection for Vipera schweizeri
on Milos in order to prevent the deliberate killing of wild specimens, deliberate disturbance of the species
particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration, and the deterioration or
destruction of their breeding sites or resting places. More specifically, the Commission considers that
Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1)(a), (b) and (d) of Directive 92/43/EEC. For this
reason infringement proceedings were initiated in October 2002, as provided for in Article 226 of the EC
Treaty.

2.
For species listed in Annex IV, such as Vipera schweizeri, Article 12 of Directive 92/43/EEC, as
interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Caretta caretta (2) case, requires the establishment and effective
implementation of a system of strict protection. Member States can of course derogate from the provisions

C 268 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

of Article 12 in the interest of public health and safety. However, they may only do so where there is no
satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the
species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range, as stipulated in Article 16 of
Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission does not have any information on the uncontrolled introduction of other, non-
indigenous species. Article 22 of Directive 92/43/EEC gives Member States a broad margin of discretion in
this regard. They must ensure that the deliberate introduction into the wild of any species which is not
native to their territory is regulated so as not to prejudice natural habitats within their natural range or the
wild native fauna and flora and, if they consider it necessary, prohibit such introduction. It should be noted
that the specific environmental study prohibits the uncontrolled introduction of other, non-indigenous
species.

No projects concerning the protection of Vipera schweizeri have been cofinanced by the LIFE

3.
financial instrument.

A Milos viper conservation project was cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF),
under the ‘Environment 1994-1999’ operational programme, notably measure No 3.1 on the conservation
of protected species.

The project, ‘Protection of the Milos viper’s biotope’ (code number 3.1.01), received 75 % of a total budget
initially set at ECU 221 641. At the end of 2000, ECU 127 253 had been spent. The funds were used for
information/awareness-raising work, a study on measures to be taken to protect the Milos viper and a
study on the construction of a Visitor Information Centre.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

(2)

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
Judgment of the Court of 30 January 2002, Commission v Hellenic Republic, case C-103/00, European Court
Reports.

(2003/C 268 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0187/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(31 January 2003)

Subject: Attacks on Italian tourists in Nice

For some months, Italian tourists travelling along the Côte d’Azur by motorway have been met at the Nice
motorway exit by organised gangs of robbers, probably of North African origin, who attack drivers,
including women and old people, giving them a rather unpleasant welcome to France.

This situation, which has been widely reported by the press in France and Italy, has been taken up directly
with the Prefecture of Nice by a number of mayors from the neighbouring Italian region of Liguria.

Does the European Union not intend to make representations to the French authorities in Nice, including
the border authorities, to call for action to be taken to guarantee the safety and freedom of movement of
tourists from other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(27 February 2003)

In the context of the Convention of 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, Member States have
committed themselves in stepping up law enforcement co-operation across their internal borders for the
purposes of preventing and detecting criminal offences. To this end, the Convention has provided Member
States with new instruments, and also allows in Article 39 that arrangements are made and agreements
concluded between Member States with a common border.

An example of such agreement is the one concluded between the governments of France and Italy
pertaining to police and customs co-operation, signed on 3 October 1997 in Chambéry.