WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/03 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Failure to carry out a preliminary inspection in respect of the entire Costa Dorada property complex on the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento, Teulada (Cagliari), Sardinia, Italy.
Date: 2003-06-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sardinia, application of EU law, coastal region, dividing up of land, environmental impact, impact study, investment, operational programme, protected area

C 58 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Does the Commission accept some of the responsibility for the fact that, following its transfer to the
2.
armed forces, the European Union-funded EKAB helicopter fleet will no longer be governed by the
stringent JAA safety rules and, in particular, JAR Code 145 on technical backup for aircraft and JAR OPS-1
and JAR OPS-3 which lay down stringent standards regarding aircraft and helicopters, their equipment, the
safety and flight experience of air crews and JAA licensing, since it is specifically stated that these rules are
binding on emergency air ambulance services but not on flights by aircraft belonging to the armed forces?

3.
Has the Commission investigated the way in which Community funds are being used for the air
ambulance fleet in Greece, the reasons for the accidents involving the A 109 Power Agusta helicopter and
ways of preventing this from occurring again in the future? Has it also looked into the decision to
purchase two Piaggio aircraft subsequently revealed to be unsuitable, leading to cancellation of the order?

4. What representations will the Commission make to the Greek Government with a view to ensuring
that emergency air rescue services remain in the civil aviation sector, rather than the airforce, as is the case
in all other Member States of
the European Union, so as to guarantee full compliance with JAA
specifications?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The helicopter crews and other operational costs of the Greek National First Aid Centre (EKAB) have

1.
never been financed under the European Union’s Community Support Framework for Greece.

The Commission does not bear any responsibility for the operational safety of

these aircraft.
2.
The Greek authorities’ decision to transfer the operation of emergency air rescue services to the armed
forces means that their operation is not covered by JAA requirements. Furthermore, the provisions of JAR
OPS 1 and 3 have not been transposed into Community law.

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to Priority Question No P-546/03

3.
from Mr Xarchakos (1).

4.
The Commission does not have the power to make representations to a Member State about the civil
or military nature of the body responsible for its emergency air rescue services. These services are covered
by Community rules on freedom of movement of services,
freedom of access to the market and
competition. Therefore, measures to exclude or to prohibit activities by service providers may only be
taken if they will guarantee that their intended objective will be achieved, but they may not go beyond
what is necessary for that objective to be attained. It must be impossible to achieve the same result by
imposing less restrictive rules. Furthermore, such measures must be justified by overriding public-interest
requirements and not by economic factors and must be in proportion to the aims pursued.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

(2004/C 58 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Failure to carry out a ‘preliminary inspection’

in respect of the entire Costa Dorada property
complex on the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento, Teulada (Cagliari), Sardinia, Italy

Along the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento (Teulada district, Sardinia),
five holiday/
residential developments (apartment blocks, hotels, holiday homes, service units, golf courses, and so on)
have been approved (1). They lie adjacent to one another and they form part of a single 189 000 m3
complex, the plans for which have been submitted by the SITAS SpA company. The environmental
associations Amici della Terra and Gruppo d’intervento giuridico have on a number of occasions asked the

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/101

appropriate administrative authorities at Community, national, regional and local level to carry out the
environmental impact assessment procedure (2), since the area in question is one of the few remaining
unspoilt broad Mediterranean coastal strips. The area is protected as a landscape (3) and part of it enjoys
comprehensive protection (4). It also contains archaeological sites dating from the nuraghic period and it is
due to be designated as a protected marine area (5). Individual sections of the building project have been
subjected to three ‘preliminary inspection’ procedures, under which three of the five site-development
plans submitted have been excluded from the subsequent environmental
impact assessment procedure
(Decisions 2204/VIII of 18 September 2002 and 2218/VIII of 19 September 2002 taken by the Director of
the SIVEA Department, Regional Environmental Protection Council), whilst only one site has been
subjected to the environmental impact assessment procedure (Decision 2204/VIII of 18 September 2002
taken by the Director of the SIVEA Department, Regional Environmental Protection Council), in blatant
violation of Community and Italian laws which stipulate that a comprehensive assessment must be
undertaken in respect of
Justice ruling of
16 September 1999 in Case 435/97 and the Lazio regional administrative court’s decision No 1456 of
16 December 2002).

the proposed building project

(see European Court of

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

1.

Is it aware of the situation described above?

2. Are there currently (or will there be in future) any projects (such as roads, water mains or sewage
systems) financed by the Community (e.g. under the 2000-2006 Sardinia RGP) for the benefit of
building projects in the Malfatano-Capo Spartivento area?

3.

Is the Commission intending to take any action in respect of this serious case involving incorrect
application of Directives 97/11/EC (6) and 85/337/EEC (7)?

(1) Proceedings of the Teulada Municipal Council nos 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 of 21 March 2001.
(2) Directive 97/11/EC (Annex II, paragraph 12c) amending and incorporating the previous directive 85/337/EEC
(Annex II, paragraph 11a), the DPR of 12 April 1996 (Articles 5 and 10; Annex B, paragraph 8a) and Sardinian
regional law 1/1999 (Article 31), as amended by and incorporated into Sardinian regional law 17/2000 (Article 17).

(3) Law decree No 490/1999, Articles 139 and 140 and Article 146(1)(a), (g) and (m).
(4) Regional law No 23/1993, Article 2(1)(a).
(5) The Capo Spartivento-Capo Teulada protected marine area within the meaning of Law no 394/1991.
(6) OJ L 73, 4.3.1997, p. 5.
(7) OJ L 175, 15.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission has already made an inquiry on the issue raised in this written question. However, it had
never appeared that the projects mentioned by the Honourable Member lie adjacent to one another and
that they form part of a single 189 000 cubic meter (m3) complex. Therefore, the issue of the splitting of a
single project had never been assessed.

Member States are obliged to ensure that the objective of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985
on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, before or after
amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, is not circumvented by the splitting of
projects. Not taking account of the cumulative effect of split projects in the determination adopted under
Article 4, paragraph 2, of Directive 85/337/EEC as amended, means that projects that, taken together, are
likely to have significant effects on the environment within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Directive
may escape the obligation to carry out an assessment.

On 11 June 2003, the Commission asked the Italian regional authorities to verify the existence of any
co-funding under the 2000-2006 Sardinia RGP, but it has not received any reply for the moment.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information on the issue raised
by the Honourable Member and to ensure, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the
compliance with Community law. Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is
being breached in this specific case, it will not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all
necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to
ensure compliance with relevant Community law.