WRITTEN QUESTION E-1862/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Conflicting information concerning financial returns from, and the impact on the environment and health of, the expansion of Sofia airport.
Date: 2003-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, airport, environmental impact, environmental protection, expropriation, impact study, indemnification, noise, pre-accession aid, profitability

C 33 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

strengthen the economic and social cohesion of the European Union by promoting cooperation between
regions and communities in fields regarded as of common interest, whether or not the regions concerned
border on one another.

Interreg IIIC projects always receive national co-financing.

The national and regional authorities, as members of the steering committee, have powers to examine,
evaluate and select projects.

Does the Commission have evidence suggesting that the Minotauro project might be in contravention of
the Nice Treaty?

Does the Commission regard the use of animals for entertainment under the guise of cultural exchange as
appropriate in this day and age?

What cities/regions are participating in the Minotauro project?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Community Initiative Interreg IIIC seeks to promote interregional cooperation between regional and
local authorities across the whole of the EU territory. It is financed by the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) and part-financed by the national partners in each project.

An application for Community part-financing under Interreg IIIC was submitted for the Minotauro project
under a call for proposals, the closing date of which was 10 January 2003 and in respect of which the
selection process has not yet been completed. It was presented under the Interreg IIIC South programme
and its lead agency is located in Spain. It involves nine partners, from four Member States (Greece, Spain,
France and Portugal). The partners are local authorities (mayor’s offices in Cuéllar, San Sebastián de los
Reyes, Moura, Beziers, Ciudad Rodrigo, Segorbe, Ampuero, Soria and Lychnostatis).

According to information available to the Commission, the intention of the promoters of the Minotauro
project is not to finance bullfighting activities directly but rather to network their towns from a cultural
point of view. Moreover, no mention is made in the application file submitted of bullfighting activities.

Matters concerned with the priority to be given to concrete projects or the advisability of such projects
have to be considered by the entities which, under Community law and in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity, are responsible for examining, assessing and selecting projects to be financed by the
Structural Funds, i.e. programming committees made up of representatives from the Member States, the
regions and other relevant bodies.

Moreover, the rules governing bullfighting and related activities fall within the competence of the Member
States.

(2004/C 33 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1862/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Conflicting information concerning financial returns from, and the impact on the environment and

health of, the expansion of Sofia airport

1.
Is the Commission aware of the comments made on 24 April 2003 by 23 representatives of
Bulgarian organisations concerned with the protection of nature and the environment regarding the effects
of preparations for expanding Sofia airport, according to which:

(a)

the ‘Internal Rate of Return (IRR) for this project will be only 3,6 % (or 1,5 % excluding the ISPA
contribution), whilst the ’Transport Infrastructure Regional Study’ (TIRS) takes as its basis a figure of
12 to 15 % and, for countries with large debts and a low capacity for repayment, even of 25 to 30 %;

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/183

(b)

there has been no comprehensive environmental impact assessment, contrary to Bulgarian law and to
Directive 97/11/EC (1), which means that the ‘Health Risk Assessment Report’ (HRAR) concerning
effects on the central nervous system, heart, blood vessels and endocrine system of those living in the
vicinity of the airport can only be based on indirect criteria;

(c)

the HRAR states that the number of persons affected by noise nuisance will not fall, but rather
increase, partly in view of the fact that separate noise limits have not been laid down for night flights,
although, as from April 2002, night flights are again being allowed, following a short ban;

(d)

those living in the region will lose their houses and agricultural land without adequate compensation
for the loss of employment and home?

2.
How is it that this information differs so completely from the arguments put forward by the
European Investment Bank (EIB (cid:1) Info & News, 3.12.2002) and from the Commission’s answers to my
earlier questions E-2037/02 (2) and E-2038/02 (3)?

3.
Is this plan being pushed through at any cost for reasons of supposed economic demand or for
reasons of national pride, even if it is not possible to comply with existing Bulgarian national or EU rules?

Is it still possible to reach a solution involving agreement between all concerned? What steps is the

4.
Commission taking to try to achieve this?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 173.
(3) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 123.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the letter of 24 April 2003 from representatives of various Bulgarian
organisations on the Sofia airport development project. The Member of the Commission responsible for
Environmental policy replied on 21 May 2003 on behalf of the Commission. The Directorate-General for
Regional Policy, which is responsible for managing the ISPA financial instrument, sent additional technical
information on 2 June 2003.

The internal rate of return which is an assessment of financial flows, is only one factor to be taken into
account in assessing the viability of projects of this type. In addition, the wider economic benefits must be
considered within a longer term perspective.

The Commission is satisfied that
the
in this case the Environmental
requirements of the ISPA Regulation (1). The EIA and associated decisions issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Waters made a number of recommendations to mitigate adverse effects on the local and
wider environment. The issue of noise protection is being given particular attention by the Sofia Airport
authorities who have initiated a Noise Protection Project and Aviation Noise Monitoring and Flight
Tracking System.

Impact Assessment (EIA) met

The Commission is informed that, under the Noise Protection Project, measures are to be taken to protect
houses and other buildings falling within the defined protection zone. When the new runway is
operational and noise monitoring system in place, the situation will be reviewed and additional measures
taken if necessary. Moreover, Sofia airport authority will establish an information point to allow residents
close to the airport to be kept informed about measures taken, the procedures, their rights, different
technical options, etc.

Matters relating to any compensation for persons undergoing relocation is subject to national legislation
only. This does not involve the Commission.

The Commission does not consider that there is any inconsistency between the foregoing and the answers
given to the Honourable Member’s previous Written Questions E-2037/02 and E-2038/02.

C 33 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

The Sofia airport reconstruction project is being undertaken in the context of the overall development of
the Bulgarian economy and is in line with the Union’s objectives to contribute to the improvement of
transport
the evidence available to the
Commission, the project complies with relevant Community rules.

infrastructures in the candidate countries. On the basis of

With regard to environmental concerns, the Commission has insisted on correct procedures being followed
by the Bulgarian authorities (e.g. condition on EIA in the ISPA financing memorandum). Moreover, the
Commission has urged the Bulgarian authorities
information on all
environmental aspects of the project, including measures taken to implement the recommendations of
the EIA and Ministry of Environment decisions. The non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are
represented on the ISPA monitoring committee, which meets twice a year in Bulgaria to review progress
on assisted projects. The Commission also engages in regular formal or informal discussions and
correspondence with the NGOs.

to provide full and regular

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-

accession, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 33 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1888/03

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: International air transport

A report in an Athens newspaper claims that Commissioner de Palacio has expressed the view that there
should be only 5 or 6 major air carriers in the EU, whereas there are currently 14 national airlines.

Is Mrs de Palacio’s view a personal one or is it Commission policy? In the latter case, what provisions have
been made for dealing with unemployment in the air transport sector?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

The Commission does not in any way plan to set the number of air carriers in the EU. This number
depends on the market, which has been fully opened up since 1997. The figure cited by the Honourable
Member refers to the view expressed by most of the experts in the industry, one which the Vice-President
responsible for transport and energy and the entire Commission have repeated on several occasions. Many
analysts agree that there is not room in the European market for some fifteen intercontinental airlines and
that the industry needs consolidation, especially during a crisis like the one currently facing the industry.
Since the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001, the air transport sector has been going through an
unprecedented crisis brought about by a number of destabilising factors (fears of further terrorist attacks,
in a climate of general
conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS))
economic downturn. The concentration of players in this sector to achieve a critical size and boost their
efficiency and economic viability in the market constitutes a natural trend, especially since many European
carriers are too small compared with their international competitors.

However, this trend is not irreconcilable with increased activity, which liberalisation has made possible, on
the part of European regional air carriers or with the emergence of new carriers (like the low-cost airlines),
which lead to the creation of jobs. A number of new companies have appeared over the last few years and
are obtaining excellent economic results.

For its part, the Commission intends to leave the companies to develop in the framework of the
competitive European market. As Guardian of the Treaties, it will exercise vigilance and take action in
respect of any unlawful State aid which might favour some companies to the detriment of others.