WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol.
13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/113 Does this statement reflect the views of the Commission? Could the Commission state whether any citizens of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU? If the answer to this question is yes, could the Commission explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied (on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Commission justify the decision to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way? Could the Commission explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus, contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the overwhelming majority of the international community? Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (4 May 2000) The European Council meeting in Helsinki in December 1999 concluded that á a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus to the European Union. If no settlement has been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Councilís decision on accession will be made without the above being a precondition. In this the Council will take account of all the relevant factors. í As the Honourable Member is aware, the result of the de facto division of the island into two strictly separated parts is that the fundamental freedoms laid down by the Treaties and in particular freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital, right of establishment and the universally recognised political, economic, social and cultural rights cannot today be exercised over the entirety of the islandís territory. These freedoms and rights would have to be guaranteed as part of a comprehensive settlement restoring constitutional arrangements covering the whole of the Republic of Cyprus. Without prejudice to a case by case appraisal of requests for transitional measures, the Commission takes the view that transitional arrangements can be negotiated provided that they are necessary, appropriate and do not put into question the acceptance of the acquis communautaire by the new Member States. In some cases they must be accompanied by a plan with clearly defined stages for the application of the acquis including investments. The Commission considers that the enlargement negotiations and the attempts currently being made in the United Nations to find a political solution to the Cyprus problem are mutually reinforcing processes between which coherence should be assured. While a political solution to the Cyprus question is not a pre- condition for accession, it is the objective of the Union that a united Cyprus joins the Union. The Commission recalls the invitation of the Cypriot government to the Turkish Cypriots to take part in the accession process. (2001/C 46 E/122) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Exemptions from the ban on leaded petrol (4 April 2000) The fuels directive which came into effect in October 1998 lays down strict limits for the sulphur content of both petrol and diesel motor fuels. In that directive it was also decided to abandon the use of leaded petrol. The time limit for the use of leaded petrol expired at the end of last year, but France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece were granted an extension for the use of leaded and high-sulphur fuels. C 46 E/114 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 Why did the Commission support the continued use of leaded petrol in these countries, even though it is widely known that lead in fuels can easily be replaced by other less polluting additives? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The Commission considered carefully the requests for derogation to continue the marketing of leaded petrol from the Member States in question. In coming to its decisions the Commission was well aware of the technical alternatives to leaded petrol. However, it became equally clear that considerable consumer uncertainty would have resulted in these Member States if derogations had not been granted and that this could have given rise to widespread disruption. The Commission thus concluded that the derogation periods granted were necessary to allow the authorities in the Member States to inform consumers accurately on this topic and to implement the necessary measures to ensure a smooth transition to unleaded petrol. (2001/C 46 E/123) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Canalisation of the Poyo, Torrente, Chiva and Pozalet ravines (Valencia) the statement thereon by the Directorate-General The initial phase of the project to canalise a 42-kilometre stretch of gullies in the network of water courses in the Chiva ravine has recently been given the go-ahead. The project in question involves making the river bed wider and deeper, diverting its course and undertaking various resurfacing operations, as well as connecting tributary gullies to the main river bed. Although the authorities did indeed approve the for Environmental mandatory impact assessment, Quality, dated 15 March, contained a three-page annex setting out as yet undisclosed conditions which the project was supposed to satisfy. Various associations and bodies, including the Spanish Association of Limnology, Agro-Environmental Action, SEO-Birdlife and the Platform for a Green Ravine, have warned of the grave impact that such a project would have on the river and lakeside ecosystems concerned. Besides it would destroy spoiling the landscape, the project would have a number of effects. For instance, completely and irrevocably the plant life which currently colonises the river bed and its banks, as well as the plant species (mates) which line the area where the river flows into the lake, thus wiping out the natural habitats they provide for an array of protected species, bird life in particular. In addition, it would disturb the toxic substances which have settled on the river bed and lead to a build-up of sediment as the water began to circulate more quickly and a larger area of the basin was drained. That sediment would then be deposited in the La Albufera lake, thus inevitably serving to speed up the silting-up of the lake, which enjoys the highest protection afforded by the regulations governing the Nature Park in question. Furthermore, should this situation occur, the project to canalise the ravines would contravene several national and regional laws and also constitute a breach of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds (under which La Albufera is designated a special bird protection area) and Directive 92/43/ EEC (2) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (under which Spain included the Nature Park as a protected area in Natura 2000 network). Could the Commission outline the current state of play as regards petitions 99/4494, SG(99), A/7586 and 99/4430, SG(99), A/6253, filed by environmental organisations from Valencia? To its knowledge, is the project in question receiving Community funding? Does it Community legislation? intend to initiate infringement proceedings for failure to comply with the aforementioned