WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Construction of a polluting factory.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, business location, complaint to the Commission, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, industrial pollution, plastics industry, protected area, public health

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/151

If not, what are the ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying the decision (see Article 88(2), third paragraph of
the Treaty)?

If the same ‘exceptional circumstances’ exist in other Member States or new Member States, will the
Commission approve corresponding State aid in those cases?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Commission does not intend to challenge the Council decision.

As to the exceptional circumstances recognised by the Council, the Commission would refer to the text of
the Council Decision 2003/530/EC (1).

The Commission considers that the Council decision in question can not be invoked as a precedent for
eventual future implementation problems of the milk quota levy in Italy or in other Member States.

(1) 2003/530/EC: Council Decision of 16 July 2003 on the compatibility with the Common market of an aid that the

Italian Republic intends to grant to its milk producers, OJ L 184, 23.7.2003.

(2004/C 65 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2437/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Construction of a polluting factory

People living in Tabacô, Arcos de Valdevez, Portugal, are concerned at the construction of a factory
belonging to the plastics and metal processing company company Sarreliber (cid:1) Transformação de Plásticos
e Metais, SA, which is part of the French group ORIAL, based in Paris.

According to the Arcos de Valdevez Municipal Council, the investment project envisages the creation of an
industrial unit initially offering 105 jobs, designed for the processing and coating of surfaces and injection
of plastic components for the car, perfume, sanitary and household electrical goods industries.

Public concern centres on the prospect that the above chromium coating unit will be using heavy metals
such as chromium and nickel, which are highly polluting and pose a threat to public health and the
environment, and the fact that the site is close to the River Vez and to social facilities used by children and
elderly people.

The River Vez, a tributary of the River Lima, is included in the Natura 2000 network. Local people also
state that the proposed factory has already been rejected in Galicia and the United Kingdom.

Bearing in mind that local environmentalists have already written to the Environment Commissioner, can
the Commission state its position on the above matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The proposed factory in question has been the subject of several requests for information and complaints
received by the Commission (reference Nos 2003/4425, 2003/4557 and 2003/4558).

C 65 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

According to the information contained in the complaints, the project appears to be covered by Annex II,
point 4(e) to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2), which mentions ‘installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an
electrolytic or chemical process’. Under Article 4(2) of the said Directive, Member States determine,
through a case-by-case examination or on the basis of thresholds or criteria set by the Member State
concerned, whether the project should be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to
10. The selection criteria for case-by-case examinations or setting the said thresholds or criteria are listed
in Annex III to the Directive and include densely populated areas and areas protected under Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4).

According to the information contained in the complaints, the project appears likely to affect a site of
Community importance proposed by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC (cid:1) the Rio Lima site.
Article 6(3) of this Directive provides that ‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to
the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in
combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives’.

In addition, it appears that the project could be covered by point 2.6 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/
61/EC of 24 September 1996 on integrated pollution prevention and control (5), which mentions
‘installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process
where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m3’. As stated in Article 1, this Directive ‘lays down
measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air, water and
land from the abovementioned activities, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high
level of protection of the environment taken as a whole, without prejudice to Directive 85/337/EEC and
other relevant Community provisions’.

Consequently, having examined this information, the Commission decided it must draw the Portuguese
authorities’ attention to the proposed factory in question and request certain clarifications, in particular
whether an appropriate environmental impact assessment has been carried out and whether the preventive
measures specified in the said provisions have been taken.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(5) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2004/C 65 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Abolition of visas for journeys by immigrants from third countries legally resident in Switzerland

The Swiss Industry and Construction Union and the Swiss Forum for the integration of migrants stress the
need to abolish visas for immigrants from States not belonging to the European Union who are resident in
that country.

Around half a million residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not EU Member States
are still required to obtain a visa whenever they wish to travel to their country or to a State in the
Schengen area, which entails costs in terms of both time and money.

Even though the situation has certainly improved, since the visas now have a longer duration, the
underlying problem remains.