WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Damage done to the Pontine coast in Italy by the Lazio regional authorities.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/101 Europe agreements provide for the application by these countries of the áacquis communautaireí in the field of state aid. This means that under these agreements the applicant countries cannot grant unfair aid packages to a company investing in their country. The Commission is currently investigating public aid cases concerning car manufacturers in Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia. An exemplary co-operation took place this year between the Czech Republic and the Commission in the assessment by the Czech authorities of an aid offer to Skoda (a subsidiary of the Volkswagen group). The Community rules were applied and the final aid amount was reduced from from € 130 million to € 22 million. (2000/C 280 E/104) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission Subject: Competition law and the Spanish electricity sector (12 January 2000) In October the Spanish Government announced that if approval were not granted for aid to cover the costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for the electricity companies, consumersí bills would rise. The body representing the electricity industry recently reiterated this point, in an attempt to reinforce the idea that these measures, currently under investigation by the European Commission as state aids, are positive. Quite apart from the fact that it does not appear to make sense, this announcement demonstrates that although the liberalisation of the electricity sector has gone through, the companies enjoy a position of joint dominance which allows them to fix their prices with the government without reference to competitors, since none in fact exist. Does the Commission agree that these assertions by the Spanish Government and the electricity companies prove that competition does not exist within the Spanish electricity industry? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (25 February 2000) The Spanish government has notified the Commission of its plans to grant the companies in the electricity sector a financial compensation in order to help their adaptation to competition following the liberal- isation of the sector under Directive 96/92/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1). At present, the Commission is closely examining this notification. The Commission has not yet finalised this examination, and can thus not communicate its results yet. The Commission has not recently made any other investigation on competition in the electricity sector in Spain. Therefore, the Commission is currently not in a position to reply to the question of the Honourable Member. (1) OJ L 27, 30. 1. 1997. (2000/C 280 E/105) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Damage done to the Pontine coast in Italy by the Lazio regional authorities Several months ago, áenvironmental regenerationí operations at Porto Badino, in the commune of Terracina. Gravel was spread along the waterís edge and several kilometres of beach were subsequently ruined and rendered inaccessible as a result of the gravel the regional authorities of Lazio ordered several C 280 E/102 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 deposits on the beach. This had a disastrous effect in both environmental terms, by endangering the areaís natural beauty, and economic terms, as the area is now less attractive to tourists. Moreover, it appears that this áregenerationí might even be extended to surrounding areas on the Lazio coast. Does the Commission not consider that this runs counter to Directive 76/160/EEC (1) on the quality 1. of bathing water and Directive 76/464/EEC (2) on the discharge of dangerous substances into the aquatic environment? 2. Given its impact on the natural habitat, does it not also breach Directive 92/43/EEC (3)? 3. Will the Commission contact the relevant authorities, and in particular the president of the Lazio Region, the regional councillor for the environment and the mayor of Terracina, to ask them to shed light on the reasons for the above operations and the research on which the project was based? Does the Commission not think it would be advisable to call on the competent authorities to apply 4. Community law with greater prudence? 5. What is the Commissionís general view on the matter? (1) OJ L 31, 5. 2. 1976, p. 1. (2) OJ L 129, 18. 5. 1976, p. 23. (3) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992, p. 7. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (11 February 2000) The Honourable Member makes reference to a situation which is not covered by Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community, Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water or Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Under Directive 76/464/EEC ádischargeí means the introduction into the waters referred to in paragraph 1 of any substances in List I or List II of the Annex. In this specific case, the application of the gravel material was limited to the beach and the coastal zone, therefore, no ádischargeí to the aquatic environment took place. Furthermore, the substances mentioned by the Honourable Member are not included in List I or List II of the Annex. Inert gravel material could be considered neither as list I nor list II substance. Directive 76/160/EEC aims to protect the environment and human health by reducing the pollution of bathing water and to protect such waters against further deterioration. To this purpose it set out a monitoring system which requires Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure the quality of the bathing water conforms to the limit values and the minimum frequency and method of sampling operations given in the Annex. Possible breach of the Directive can be envisaged only in so far as a lack of conformity to the given limit values can be demonstrated with reference to the bathing area concerned. Directive 92/43/EEC sets out obligations for Member States concerning the protection of special areas of conservation (SPA) and to sites of community importance (SIC) identified under the Directive. However, the area mentioned by the Honourable Member is neither part of a SPA designated pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC nor of a SIC proposed pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC. Therefore, Directive 92/43/EEC is not of application in the specific case. The circumstances raised by the Honourable Member could be relevant under Council Directive 97/11/EEC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Directive states: Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Annex II lists at No10(k): Coastal work to combat erosion and 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/103 maritime works capable of altering the coast through the construction, for example, of dykes, moles, jetties and other sea defence works, excluding the maintenance and reconstruction of such works. Provided that the work to which the Honourable Member refers can be considered as a project under the class mentioned, it would have been made the subject of an examination. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about the matter and to ensure the observance of relevant Community law. (1) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997. (2000/C 280 E/106) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2686/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 January 2000) Subject: Compliance with the nitrates directive by the Flemish Region According to the Vlaamse MilieuMaatschappij (Flemish Environment Society) there will be double the permitted amount of fertiliser in the Flemish Region in the year 2000. Total fertiliser production amounts to 90 000 tonnes of phosphates and there is room for only 50 000 tonnes. As a result, compliance with the European nitrates directive by the year 2003 looks unlikely. It should also be pointed out that in 1996 phosphate production was already running at 82 million kg (37 million from cattle-breeding, 32 million from pig-breeding and 11 million from poultry breeding). There were also 5 million kg of artificial fertiliser. The 700 000 kg phosphates from sheep, goats and mink have not been taken into account. 1. Is the Commission aware of the rise in the volume of fertiliser produced in the Flemish Region? If so, what is the Commissionís attitude towards this trend in the light of the adverse effect on compliance with the nitrates directive? If not, what is the Commissionís assessment of compliance with the nitrates directive in the Flemish Region? 2. What arguments and positions did the Commission refer to in its recent letter to the Belgian Federation concerning compliance with the European nitrates directive? Does the Commission give proposals and a timetable in this letter to ensure full and proper compliance with the nitrates directive in the Belgian Federation, and in particular in the Flemish Region? If so, what proposals and what timetable? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000) The Commission is aware of the serious problems in the Flemish Region of Belgium caused by the presence of large quantities of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) resulting from the use of chemical fertilisers ü over 300 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare ü and the spreading of livestock manure on farmland, also representing over 300 kilograms of nitrogen per hectare. These excessive quantities are the cause of diffuse groundwater pollution, to which the Vlaamse Milieumaatschappij (Flemish Environmental Association) draws attention in its reports, and the eutrophication of most surface waters; they are also contributing to the eutrophication of the North Sea. Given this situation, the Flemish Region of Belgium has not, in the Commissionís view, designated as vulnerable zones, under Article 3 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (1), all the areas of its territory concerned. Under the terms of Article 5 of the Directive, vulnerable zones must be the object of an action programme including measures which ensure that, for each farm or livestock unit, the amount of livestock manure applied to the land each year, including by the animals themselves, does not exceed a specified amount per hectare. The specified amount per hectare is the amount containing 210 kilograms of