WRITTEN QUESTION E-0360/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Rome urban planning scheme.
Date: 2003-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, environmental impact, heritage protection, town-planning scheme, urbanisation

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/121

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

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

if carried out in
The Honourable Member refers in particular to cabotage operations that are lawful
accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 (1). Article 1(1) of
this
Regulation provides that any road haulage carrier for hire or reward who is a holder of the Community
authorisation provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 (2) must be entitled to operate on a temporary
basis national road haulage services for hire or reward in another Member State.

It is the task of the national authorities to verify compliance with the Community rules on access to the
road transport market and to put an end to any illegal practices. According to the information at the
Commission’s disposal, the Greek authorities are taking action to this effect.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which non-resident

carriers may operate national road haulage services within a Member State (cid:1) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 881/92 of 26 March 1992 on access to the market in the carriage of goods by road
within the Community to or from the territory of a Member State or passing across the territory of one or more
Member States (cid:1) OJ L 95, 9.4.1992.

(2003/C 242 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0360/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: Rome urban planning scheme

On 18 June 2002 Rome City Council approved the new general urban planning scheme which, however,
far from providing an opportunity to improve conditions in the city, is yet another example of exploiting
land and damaging the environment. The scheme envisages a 20 % increase in construction work, using
70 million cubic metres of concrete, thereby flouting the rule on proportionality between volume of
building and population, or the ratio between incentives for building work and the provision of services. In
actual fact Rome’s population is 2,4 million, not 5 million as stated in the scheme, but despite this no
provision has been made for adequate facilities, which are currently lacking, such as sewerage systems,
pipelines, water supply, lighting and city transport. The least appropriate aspect is the heavy involvement
of areas in the city’s hinterland and the acquisition, for this purpose, of large tracts of agricultural land for
building, which will damage the historical and archaeological heritage, the environment and farming. In
addition to this speculative building work, there are also the remaining elements of the existing Urban
Parking Plan (PUP), which, because of its dangerous environmental impact, was the subject of a previous
question by the same author (25 July 2000) and the Commission’s answer (P-2518/00 (1)), in which it
stressed precisely that the ‘possible cumulative effects of different projects should be sufficiently taken into
account’. In this context it should be emphasised, in the light of recent Court of Justice case-law (inter alia
Case C 319/01 (cid:1) Commission v Belgium and C 348/01 (cid:1) Commission v France) that another city traffic
scheme (PGTU) presenting a high environmental risk is being carried out in Rome. A further irregularity in
the urban planning scheme concerns the consultation and participation of the public which, according to
Article 3(7) and Article 6(5) of Directive 2001/42/EC (2) should always be involved, together with the
relevant authorities, when decisions concerning environmental impact are taken. On the contrary, Rome
City Council received the details of the scheme ten days after its adoption, and thus only had a few weeks
to consider them, formulate proposals and subject the scheme for appropriate consideration and debate.

C 242 E/122

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

In the light of the above and the recent joint proposal (PE-CONS 3667/2002) to amend Directive 90/313/
EEC (3), approved by the Conciliation Committee on 8 November 2002, can the Commission answer the
following questions:

1. Does it not consider that the environmental impact assessment of the urban planning scheme, if one

was carried out, shows substantial irregularities?

2. Have not the rules on informing and consulting the public been infringed?

3. What is the Commission’s opinion on the matter?

(1) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 170.
(2) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to conclude that
the PRG, General Regulatory Plan for Rome, may be considered as a project under Council Directive 85/
337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1), after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2) (EIA Directive).
Therefore, the Honourable Member is kindly requested to refer to the previous response given by the
Commission to Written Question E-3921/2002 of Mrs Angelilli (3).

As regards the possible cumulative effects of different projects, it is to be stressed that it is not relevant
where the EIA Directive is not applicable.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 129.

(2003/C 242 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(12 February 2003)

Subject: EIB financing for education in Rome

The report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the EIB’s Annual Report for 2001
states that, with reference to efforts to increase economic and social cohesion, 16 % of the loans for
regional development projects were allocated to health and education.

The rapporteur, Mrs van den Burg expresses regret concerning the practicalities for using these loans, since
only 1,1 % of the total was invested in health and education, and calls for the promotion of a social policy
focused on these objectives.

With particular reference to the education sector and the questioner’s earlier question concerning security
in Roman schools, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1.

Is it possible to include, among the aims of EIB funding for education, the improvement of school
facilities?

2. Can Rome City Council, as a public authority, have access to investments in this sector and, if so, has

it availed itself of this opportunity?

3. Has the Commission considered what position to adopt with regard to the above request made by the

EP?