WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Deterioration of the road surface along sections of the Korinthos-Tripoli-Kalamata motorway in Greece owing to subsidence.
Date: 2003-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, European Regional Development Fund, Greece, building regulations, motorway, road building

C 242 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

As far as its questions concerning possible measures to regulate pair trawling for sea bass, or to address,
in a broader approach, the problem of incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries, the Commission would
invite the Honourable Member to refer to its reply to Written Question P-0500/03 by Mr Davies (1).

The priority of the Commission action is orientated towards addressing the issue of cetacean by-catch
within marine waters adjacent to the European territory of the Union. The geographical extent of the
proposals under consideration will depend on the fishery concerned, the level of available information on
its possible impacts on cetaceans, and the type of measure proposed.

However, on the basis of the information available at this stage on incidental catches of cetaceans, the
Commission does not consider the placing of observers on Community vessels using pair trawlers in
international waters to be a high priority. In addition, such a measure, if envisaged, should benefit from
international co-ordination within the framework of the regional fisheries organisation covering the high
seas concerned.

(1) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 209.

(2003/C 242 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Deterioration of the road surface along sections of the Korinthos-Tripoli-Kalamata motorway in

Greece owing to subsidence

In view of the subsidence which has occurred in the last few days along the Korinthos-Tripoli-Kalamata
motorway,

can the Commission provide the following information:

(cid:1) Was the construction of the motorway funded by the European Union and, if so, how much funding

has been provided to date?

(cid:1) Has the motorway been inspected for construction defects by the ESPEL public works quality control

body?

(cid:1) Did the inspection reveal any construction defects and, if so, what action was taken by the Greek

authorities to remedy matters prior to these recent developments?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

Following the extreme weather conditions in Greece in the beginning of 2003, there have been certain
difficulties encountered regarding the realisation of projects, especially road works, in several regions of
Greece.

The Greek authorities proposes to examine the situation with the help of expert advice. The Commission is
in regular contact with the Greek authorities and has asked to be informed on the results of this
examination.

Sections of the motorway Korinthe-Tripolis-Kalamata have been co-financed by the Cohesion Fund during
the period 1993-1999, with an amount of EUR 37 million. The relevant designs had also been co-financed
by the European Union in the framework of the budget for the promotion of the Trans-European

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/137

Networks in the years 1986-1987, with an amount of EUR 6,5 million. Other sections have been
co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund, within the Regional Operational Programme
1994-1999 for Peloponese. The amount of
the assistance for these sections are expected to be
communicated by the Greek authorities to the Commission when the closure report for this programme
is submitted.

The Commission is not informed at present about possible ESPEL controls for projects relating to the
realisation of this motorway. However, such information should be included in the relevant closure report
for the Operational Programme Peloponese.

(2003/C 242 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0499/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental objectives relating to the Rhine

In her answer dated 3 June 2002 to Written Question E-1128/02 (1) tabled by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL),
Mrs Wallström states that the Commission is of the view that the existing agreement on the Rhine and the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive in close cooperation with all riparian states will ensure
[he attainment of] the environmental objectives relating to the Rhine both as regards ecology and the use
of water from the Rhine for the abstraction of drinking water.

That statement prompts the following questions:

1. Does the Commission agree that

the measures laid down in the Framework Water Directive
(2000/60/EC) (2) with a view to ensuring compliance with the provisions of Article 7 of that Directive,
including measures to maintain water quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment
required in the abstraction of drinking water, imply that the water companies should be cutting back
their efforts instead of increasing them?

2. As the European Union’s representative on the International Convention for the Protection of the
Rhine, does the Commission support the ‘Target’ for isoproturon set by the International Commission
for the Protection of the Rhine of 0,1 µg/l as the desired maximum value for the presence of this
substance in the water of the Rhine?

3.

4.

5.

In November 2001, Parliament and the European Council drew up a list of priority substances. Inter
alia, water quality standards were to be established for those substances. Isoproturon is one of the
‘priority hazardous substances’ to be evaluated and is responsible for the suspension of water supplies
to purification plants producing drinking water referred to by Mr Meijer. How does the Commission
take into account the ‘target’ referred to above when setting the standard for isoproturon?

If the Commission does not take into account the ‘target’ referred to above when setting standards,
how does it take into account the importance of drinking water abstraction from surface water when
setting the standard for isoproturon?

In its answer to Mr Meijer’s questions, the Commission states that a solution must also be sought in
the proper implementation of Directive 91/414/EEC (3). Is the Commission aware that the criterion
included in the Uniform Principles for the abstraction of drinking water from surface water is
currently not being implemented by any Member State in its assessment procedure for the
authorisation of pesticides in general and the procedure for the authorisation of isoproturon in
particular and that this state of affairs is being justified by some Member States on the grounds that
no guidance document exists for a check of this nature?

6. Does the Commission have any plans to draw up in the near future a guidance document of that
nature in order to counteract this failure to implement the assessment procedure for the authorisation
of pesticides?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.