WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council. Fishing in the EU's western waters.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, common fisheries policy, conservation of fish stocks, fishery management, fishing area

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/199

(2004/C 51 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2095/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Construction of high voltage power station by the Greek PPC in the Argyroupolis (cid:1) Ilioupolis area

The planning and construction of a high voltage power station (HVPS) by the Greek PPC was approved in
accordance with Article 24 of the Greek law L. 2516/1997 in an area that belongs to the B protection
zone of mount Imittos. The stipulations of this article were judged non valid by the High Administrative
Court, due to infringement of the Article 24 of the Greek Constitution referring to protection of the
environment. Objections (referring to the construction licence and the environmental impact assessment
study) were submitted by the mayor of
the city of Argyroupolis and a few citizens to the High
Administrative Court against the construction of the HVPS, but the trial has been postponed three times
(1 November 2002, 7 February 2003 and 9 May 2003). Three public schools are situated less than
50 metres from the area where the HVPS will be constructed.

Although the construction of the HVPS violates the Greek Constitution, the Government has adopted a
new law L. 2947/2002 for Olympic works, which includes the construction of the HVPS. Referring to this
law, the Minister of Public Works issued another construction licence, No 59365/25.7.2002. The PPC and
the Government never examined alternative solutions, contrary to the provisions of Greek Law.

Furthermore, the Government has refused to give access to interested parties to the new construction
plans, and policemen present in the neighbourhood since the beginning of May 2003 have refused access
to the wider area to the general public.

Do the present works on the HVPS by the PPC in Argyroupolis-Ilioupolis comply with Directive 97/11/
EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment?

Under which authorised planning and construction licence are the works on the HVPS being continued?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it is not competent to answer these questions.

(2004/C 51 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Fishing in the EU’s western waters

Recently (on 4 June) the European Parliament voted to ensure that Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93 (1) and
(EC) No 685/95 (2) would remain in force for a 10-year period, and it did so in connection with its vote on
its legislative resolution on a proposal for a Council regulation on the management of the fishing effort
relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93.

Parliament’s position was supported by an overwhelming majority of 334 to 108, with 48 abstentions.

Notwithstanding the allocation of powers and responsibilities amongst the various EU institutions, such a
clear and eloquent expression of a political view by those elected to represent the people of the various EU
Member States (more than an absolute majority of Parliament’s total membership and over two-thirds of
the votes cast) cannot be ignored either by the Commission or by the Council.

C 51 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

However, it continues to be reported that new rules on access to the EU’s western waters (in particular
those along the Portuguese coast) are being drawn up in blatant contradiction to Parliament’s vote.
Furthermore, the new rules would allow access in certain cases within the 12-mile limit and, in others,
within the 50-mile limit. This would jeopardise not only the conservation of valuable resources in those
waters but also the social and economic balances which have been preserved by means of the CFP and the
objectives thereof.

Does the Council not think that it should scrupulously respect the wishes expressed by the European
Parliament to the effect that the substance of the two above-mentioned regulations, the current status quo
and all the effects stemming therefrom (with particular reference to the EU’s western waters) should remain
unaltered for the next 10 years? If it does not think so, in what way and on what basis does it plan to
ignore them?

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 71, 31.3.1995, p. 5.

Reply

(13 October 2003)

The Council would like to remind the Honourable Member of the European Parliament that it has always
scrupulously respected the decision-making rules of the Treaty, taking due account of the opinions of the
European Parliament.

Concerning the proposal for a Council Regulation on the management of the fishing effort relating to
certain Community fishing areas and resources and modifying Regulation (EEC) 2847/93, discussions are
still on-going within the Council. At its last meeting in June 2003, the Council instructed Coreper to
continue work on this file with a view to its adoption as soon as possible. Therefore, at this stage the
Council cannot pre-empt its final decision.

(2004/C 51 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2108/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Temporary Agency Workers Directive

Will the Council please give its view on the failure to reach agreement on the Temporary Agency Workers
Directive on 3 June?

Reply

(13 October 2003)

In response to the Honourable Parliamentarian the Council would like to underline that, on 3 June 2003,
substantial progress has already been made by the Council on this dossier on a common position with a
view to reaching political agreement as soon as possible.

identified the three key elements necessary for a balanced political
On 6 March 2003, the Council
compromise. The Greek Presidency consequently elaborated a compromise package comprising Article 1(3),
Article 4 and a new Article 11(3) containing a transitional period, along the lines proposed by the
European Parliament in its 1st reading, to replace the exemption in Article 5(4).

This compromise package was discussed in a public session at the Council on 3 June but, as the question
of the transitional arrangements concerning the exemption to the principle of equal treatment, still
continued to be unsolved, the Council concluded that political agreement was not achievable at this stage,
despite the willingness shown to make progress on this dossier. The Council has mandated Coreper to
pursue its work on this Directive.