WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/04 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Release of toxic waste by a fire at an industrial plant in Thessaloniki and non-compliance by Greece with ECJ judgment on hazardous waste.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental protection, hazardous waste, storage of waste, toxic substance, waste management

C 88 E/190

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0517/04

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Release of toxic waste by a fire at an industrial plant in Thessaloniki and non-compliance by

Greece with ECJ judgment on hazardous waste

The explosion in a provisional storage area of 210 tonnes of toxic waste produced by the former ‘DIANA’
industrial plant in Thessaloniki caused a fire which led to the release of large amounts of toxic substances
into the atmosphere and the environment, endangering public health. Environmental organisations have
condemned the provisional storage of some 1 000 tonnes of dangerous pesticides in disused and run-down
facilities belonging to the company in question. Repeated questions tabled by the author of the present
question concerning the uncontrolled disposal of hazardous waste (P-2724/03 (1) and E-3216/03 (2)) have
revealed that the whereabouts of the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste which are provisionally stored
out of 390 000 tonnes produced annually in Greece are unknown. This is in breach of Community
legislation (Directive 91/689/EEC (3) on hazardous waste, as amended by Directive 94/31/EC (4)). In view of
the above, will the Commission say:

1. Which immediate measures can be taken to protect public health and the environment and to
identify the final disposal or utilisation sites of the 230 000 tonnes of hazardous waste produced annually
which are kept in provisional storage and constitute a time bomb for public health and the environment?

2. What measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure compliance with the Community
provisions concerning the safe storage, monitoring and identification of toxic substances and waste in
Greece?

How can environmental dumping and environmental pollution be discouraged through the effective

3.
implementation of Community legislation to the production activities carried out in Greece?

4. What stage has been reached in the procedure concerning the imposition of a fine on Greece for
non-compliance with the ECJ judgment of 13 June 2002 (C-33/01), and what does it propose that the ECJ
should do?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 132.
(2) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 490.
(3) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
(4) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.

Answer given by Mr Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Further to the replies to the Honourable Member’s Written Questions E-2645/02 (1), P-2724/03, E-3216/
03 and E-2025/03 by Mr Papayannakis (2), the Commission would like to draw the attention of the
Honourable Member to the following:

1. According to the information provided by the Greek authorities, the competent national authorities
issue permits for temporary storage and apply constant state control to ensure that public health and
the environment are protected.

2. and 4. The Commission holds no information on the precise location of the sites where the 230 000
tonnes of hazardous waste are temporarily stored. This is why an infringement procedure has been
initiated. Following the Court judgment of 13 June 2002 (3), the Commission has received incomplete
information about the measures taken by Greece to comply with the judgment. Consequently, the
Commission took the view that Greece had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the
EC Treaty and addressed a letter of formal notice, in accordance with Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/191

The reply of the Greek authorities to the letter of formal notice is under assessment. If it is established
that Greece has not complied with the above-mentioned Court judgment, the Commission will not
hesitate to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty.

Regarding action taken by the Commission to ensure that Greece complies with Community
legislation on waste, it must be recalled that the Court (4) recently declared that Greece had failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996
on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (5). In addition,
Greece has been referred to the Court of Justice (case C-163/03) over its failure to put in place an
adequate plan for the management of hazardous waste in the region of Thriassio Pedio (Prefecture of
Attiki). The referral also relates to its failure to avoid the pollution of groundwater by hazardous
waste.

The Commission will continue investigating any information, which gives sufficient reason to assume
that Greece does not properly apply Community legislation on waste.

3. An effective implementation of Community legislation on waste is, of itself, a guarantee of a high level
of environmental protection. Even if the Commission is responsible for monitoring the application of
Community law, the implementation of Community legislation falls primarily within the competencies
of the Member States. The Commission supports this process carrying out regular meetings with
national authorities and other stakeholders as well as answering their technical and legal requests.
In addition, Member States can make use of the many financial instruments and resources available to
comply with their obligations under Community legislation on waste.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.
(2) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004.
(3)
(4)
(5) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996.

Judgment of 13 June 2002, Commission/Greece, case C-33/01, ECJ Reports p. 5447.
Judgement of 5 June 2003, Commission/Greece, case C-83/02, ECJ Reports p. 5639.

(2004/C 88 E/0197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: CAP: consequences of the distribution of the reduction in income in agriculture and financing of

techniques which promote animal welfare or are environmentally sound for use on small farms

1.
Is the Commission aware of the report commissioned by the Netherlands Minister of Agriculture,
Nature Management and Fisheries and submitted on 1 April 2003 by the Agricultural Economics Research
Institute (LEI) which analyses the impact of the Commission’s reform proposals on developments in
agriculture and particularly on farm incomes, and which indicates in particular that in the Netherlands the
areas under cereals and fodder maize will decline substantially while cultivation of potatoes and vegetables
will increase, the area of pastureland will increase by 5 % and family incomes will fall by 28,4 % from their
present level of approximately EUR 30 000, the largest fall being 49 % in dairy farming?

2.
How is this decline in income likely to work out for the EU as a whole in the categories < 25 ha,
25-50 ha, 50-75 ha, 75-100 ha, 100-500 ha, 500-1 000 ha and 1 000 ha, broken down in percentages by
type of farm in arable farming and livestock farming?

3.
In the reform plans, the Commission rightly intends to emphasise farming which promotes animal
welfare and is environmentally sound, as an additional condition for payment of subsidies. How will the
Commission ensure that this emphasis does not result in the most subsidies going to large farms which
have greater resources by means of which to apply new and expensive techniques, while smaller farms
which have already opted to adopt organic cultivation methods unaided are placed at a disadvantage?