92001E1266

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1266/01

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 April 2001)

Subject: Special regional planning studies

Further to my Written Question No E-3458/00(1) concerning the special regional planning studies for the Cyclades and the Commission's answer, I would raise the same matter in relation to the island of Paros.

In a complaint to the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, the Architects' Association of the Cyclades claims that the Central Council for Planning, Development and the Environment discussed the adoption of the special regional planning study for the island of Paros in early March without taking account of the proposals for environmental protection contained in the original study funded under the Community's Envireg initiative and measure 4.2 of the Environment operational programme. The Ayios Nikolaos Society for the Conservation of Paros has also submitted a detailed official complaint to the Commission's Directorate-General for the Environment and Regional Development, accusing the Greek authorities of infringing Community rules on the funding of the special regional planning study for Paros, as well as Community Directives 85/337/EEC(2), 79/409/EEC(3) and 92/43/EEC(4). Furthermore, the recorded minutes of a recent official meeting of the Paros Municipal Council reveal that the study awaiting approval by the Central Council for Planning, Development and the Environment designates only half of the coastline at Molos as protected instead of its entire length, as proposed by the study originally funded by the Commission.

The Commission:

1. What action will it take in response to such serious alleged infringements of Community law and the options chosen by the Greek authorities, which are at odds with the purpose of the funding, i.e. environmental protection?

2. Will it allow the plan to build a - mainly commercial - port at Molos on the island of Paros to go ahead despite the proposals to declare it a total conservation area and the absence of a feasibility study for such a project?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 129.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

With regard to the implementation of the regional planning studies part-financed principally under the Regional Environment Initiative (Envireg), the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Question E-3458/00(1).

The Commission is currently examining the complaint to which the Honourable Member refers. However, at this stage, no violation of Community law has been established, since the region to which the complainants refer does not appear to form part of the protected areas. Moreover, its responsibilities and the respect for the principle of subsidiarity do not permit the Commission to take a view on whether or not amendment of a regional planning study was justified.

According to the information received from the Greek authorities, the project in question is not part-financed under the Structural Funds and so the Commission is not consulted about its planning and implementation.

If this project is proposed for part-financing, the Commission will ask the Greek authorities to respect the Community and national legislation in force, in particular as regards environmental protection.

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 129.