Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92001E003267

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lake Kourna.

Úř. věst. C 134E, 6.6.2002, p. 213–213 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92001E3267

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lake Kourna.

Official Journal 134 E , 06/06/2002 P. 0213 - 0213


WRITTEN QUESTION E-3267/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 November 2001)

Subject: Lake Kourna

On the island of Crete plans are afoot to build a biological purification plant in the vicinity of Georgoupoli. This project represents an important step in upgrading the environment in the region and is to receive co-funding under the Cohesion Fund. The site chosen for this plant is near to Lake Kourna which was included in Natura 2000.

Given that this is a necessary and particularly useful project, can the Commission confirm that locating the biological purification plant on this site will not affect the quality of the water of the lake or damage the environment? Have alternative regions been considered?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2002)

The Greek authorities asked the Commission for a Cohesion Fund contribution of about 8,6 million for a waste-water treatment plant in the Georgioupoli region.

The Commission decided when examining the case-file that the project could not be considered a priority within the meaning of Council Directive 91/271/CEE of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment(1). Moreover, it did not offer the guarantees needed to protect Lake Kournas, which is close to this area and included under code number GR4340010 in the list proposed by Greece for the Natura 2000 European ecological network under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2). The Commission has accordingly rejected this application for assistance.

(1) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

Top