WRITTEN QUESTION E-0910/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Compensation for natural disasters.
Date: 2003-03-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financial instrument, Greece, Structural Funds, aid to disaster victims, financial aid, flood, indemnification

C 11 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

(2004/C 11 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0908/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Arrest of a Greek student in the United Kingdom

(18 March 2003)

Greek student Haralambos Dousemertzis has been arrested by the United Kingdom authorities and
detained under the anti-terrorism Act. According to newspaper reports he is accused of possessing and
distributing propaganda material. The failure to provide information on the matter by the UK authorities
has been described as ‘unacceptable’ by the Greek Government.

The offences allegedly committed by the Greek student do not appear in Article 1 of Council Decision
2002/475/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism, which sets out in detail those acts deemed to
‘Jurisdiction and prosecution’, the
be terrorist offences. Furthermore, under Article 9 of the decision,
offence of which the Greek student is charged falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State,
since his alleged support for the ‘17 November’ group relates to an organisation operating solely within
Greece and the accused is a Greek national.

What will the Commission do to ensure that the abovementioned Council decision is applied and that the
rights of the Greek student concerned are protected?

(1) OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism lists types of
conduct which must be regarded as terrorist offences. It does not prohibit other types of conduct from
being outlawed by a Member State in accordance with its national
legislation, on condition that the
legislation in question is not incompatible with the Framework Decision.

Where offences fall within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State, Article 9(2) of the Framework
Decision provides for Member States to cooperate in order to decide which of them will prosecute the
alleged offenders with the aim, if possible, of centralising proceedings in a single Member State. It also
states that the Member States concerned may have recourse to any body or mechanism established within
the European Union. In the case in point, the Greek authorities could contact the European Judicial
Network or Eurojust.

The deadline for transposing the Framework Decision into national law was 31 December 2002. It goes
without saying that the obligation to respect the rights of the accused in accordance with all relevant
legislation is the corollary to implementation of the Framework Decision, as indicated in Article 1(2).

However, even though respect the Commission is very mindful of the need to the rule of law and
fundamental freedoms, it has no mandate to intervene in individual cases.

Lastly, it should be noted that, if an individual believes that his fundamental rights have been infringed, he
may take the matter to the European Court of Human Rights once all domestic legal remedies have been
exhausted.

(2004/C 11 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0910/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Compensation for natural disasters

The most recent natural disaster in Greece caused incalculable damage in many regions to crops, property,
infrastructure and, primarily roads, giving rise to severe transport problems. Some 11 regions in Greece
have been particularly affected by the bad weather and the devastation.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/155

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has Greece asked the Commission for aid in view of the fact that in some regions, such as the
Cyclades, most of the population has been affected, and for what purposes will the aid be used?

2. Has the Commission initiated the procedure to provide immediate financial aid for the above purposes
with the aim of promoting the speedy re-establishment of normal living conditions in the disaster-
stricken areas in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (1) of 11 November 2002?

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its response to written question E-0657/03 on possible
sources of support for the reparation of damage caused by the natural disasters in the Cyclades

(2004/C 11 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/03

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Danger of landslides on the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed track

A report by the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Aragon recommended that the Madrid-
Barcelona high-speed train should bypass an area near Zaragoza which had experienced subsidence in
2000 and 2001. It would seem that the recommendations made by these geologists were disregarded. A
gaping hole of fifty cubic metres has now appeared on a section of the conventional line and the high-
speed line near Zaragoza. According to newspaper reports the rails on the line circling the south of
Zaragoza, which run parallel to the high-speed tracks, were left hanging in thin air just an hour after a
good trains had passed.

Similarly, the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Catalunya has pointed to the susceptible
geological characteristics of some sections of the Lerida-Barcelona line (presence of water-expandable
gypsums and clays) which call for a ‘second phase of problem identification’, for which it would seem
there is no budget. The Catalonian Association of Engineers has also deplored what it calls a ‘breakdown in
project implementation culture’ on the Madrid-Barcelona line, saying there was poor monitoring of the
work done by contractors and a lack of quality control, and has publicly announced that the geological
surveys were disregarded.

Have the Spanish authorities provided a proper explanation for what has happened and for the criticisms
levelled by these associations of geologists and engineers?

Can the Commission provide assurances that all the requisite geological surveys aimed at averting risks and
problems were carried out for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed line, and especially the
Lerida-Barcelona section of track, and that new funding is available for the identification and/or resolution
of those problems?