You are on page 1of 2

C 60/114 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 2.

98

To these amounts must be added ECU 3.64 million from the EAGGF approved for the forest sector under the
Interreg II Community Initiative (external frontiers).

2. The Greek programme for afforestation of agricultural land approved by the Commission on 27 April 1994
under Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 (1) schedules expenditure of ECU 43.5 million chargeable to EAGGF
Guarantee for the period 1994-97. Actual expenditure to 30 April 1997 was ECU 30.9 million.

3. Under the Community aid scheme for protection of forests against fire (Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 (2))
ECU 13 million was granted for 57 Greek projects over the period 1992-96. Some 17 projects, accounting for
ECU 6.8 million, have already been completed. Under the aid scheme for protection of forests against
atmospheric pollution (Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 (3)) ECU 710 029 was granted, for the period 1992-96, for
12 projects presented by Greece for the annual inventory of forest damage and forest soil condition and for
continuous intensive ecosystem monitoring. Expenditure on these projects amounts to ECU 364 775.

Both schemes fall under budget heading B2-515 ‘Forestry’ (non-EAGGF agricultural appropriations) and have
been renewed for a further five-year period (1997-01) by Council Regulations (EC) Nos 307/97 and 308/97
amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 3528/96 and 2158/92 respectively (4).

(1) OJ L 215, 30.7.1992.


(2) OJ L 217, 31.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 326,21.11.1986.
(4) OJ L 51, 21.2.1997.

(98/C 60/195) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/97


by Katerina Daskalaki (UPE) to the Commission
(2 July 1997)

Subject: Turkish interference in minority schools in Istanbul

According to reports in the Turkish newspaper ‘Milliyet’, the Istanbul Directorate for Education, which comes
under the Turkish Ministry of Education, called in the Turkish deputy directors of the Greek minority schools
and asked them to ‘observe’ Turkish teachers who ‘collaborate’ with their Greek colleagues.

Bearing in mind that (as ‘Milliyet’ also points out) in Istanbul ‘the number of Greek schools left can be counted
on the fingers of one hand’ and that such a practice will end up intimidating the Turkish teachers and further
isolating the Greeks, and bearing in mind that it constitutes an infringement of intellectual freedom and the right
to education and that Turkey is associated with the EU through special agreements, will the Commission respond
and, if so, how?

Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission


(4 September 1997)

The Commission has been in touch with the Turkish authorities and the Turkish Human Rights Foundation and
has not obtained any evidence to corroborate the information published in ‘Milliyet.’

(98/C 60/196) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/97


by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL)
and Marı́a Sornosa Martı́nez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(2 July 1997)

Subject: Siting of a waste tip in a 100-year-old oak forest in Villamartin de Don Sancho (León, Spain)

Plans to site a tip for solid urban waste from the city of León in Villamartin de Don Sancho have aroused
considerable concern among the inhabitants of this district, leading to serious clashes between the public and the
25. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 60/115

Civil Guard. The local inhabitants, who are being supported by various environmental associations, are strongly
opposed to the waste tip, which would lead to the destruction of an oak forest over 100 years old, in good
condition and having a recognized ecological value, as well as to the pollution of three aquifers.

The local inhabitants criticize the secrecy with which the viability studies are being carried out in the area where
the waste tip is being planned and also the refusal of the authorities of the Regional Government of Castile and
León to provide any kind of information on this matter.

1. Is the Commission aware of the situation?

2. Does it not consider that it should press the authorities responsible to carry out a rigorous study in
accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
on the environment?

3. Does it not consider that, by refusing to provide the inhabitants of Villamartı́n de Don Sancho with
information on the waste tip, the Castile and León authorities are in breach of Directive 90/313/EEC (2) on
freedom of access to information on the environment?

4. What representations does the Commission intend to make to the Castile and León authorities to ensure that
the following directives are correctly applied:
(a) Framework Directive 75/442/EEC (3), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (4), on solid urban waste;
(b) Directive 80/68/EEC (5) on the protection of groundwater against pollution;
(c) Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment?

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


(2) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.5.1975, p. 39.
(4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(5) OJ L 20, 26.1.1980, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission


(1 August 1997)

1. Yes.

2. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment, and more particularly Article 2 thereof, provides that projects that are likely to have
a significant impact on the environment, more especially owing to their nature, extent or location must be subject
to an assessment of their impact before any authorisation is granted. That provision applies to the projects listed
in Annexes I and II to the Directive. Annex II (11)(c) mentions industrial-waste and household-refuse disposal
facilities. Under Article 4.2 of the Directive it is for the national authorities to determine when a project covered
by Annex II to the Directive must, owing to its characteristics, be subjected to the environmental impact
assessment procedure provided for in Articles 5-10 of the Directive.

3. Under Article 3 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on freedom of access to information on
the environment, the public authorities responsible in that area who have in their possession information on the
environment, must make such information available to all natural or legal persons so requesting without these
being required to demonstrate any interest. The public authority concerned must reply to the interested party as
quickly as possible and at the latest within two months. Any refusal to pass on the information requested must be
justified. However, on the basis of the information supplied in this written question the Commission is unable to
confirm any failure to meet the obligations deriving from Directive 90/313/EEC.

4. The Commission has sent a request for information to the Spanish authorities.