DOCSLIB.ORG

European Parliament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 1999 2004 29 April 2004 REPORT1 ◄ on the Fact-finding mission to Finland, March 24 - 26, 2004. Petition 873/2002 by Niemelä and Sario Oy, on behalf of the Finnish Association for Nature Conservation. To investigate the impact of the development of the Vuosaari Cargo Port, and related projects, on the Mustavuori/Östersundom area, specially protected under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC & the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC. Committee on Petitions Members of the delegation: Richard Balfe MEP Patsy Sörensen MEP David Lowe Secretariat, Committee on Petitions. Ex-officio members: Astrid Thors MEP Uma Aaltonen MEP Matti Wuori MEP and: Kjell Sevon, Adviser, Green Group secretariat, Linda Lindholm Ulriikka Aarnio Hannariikka Nieminen 1 presented to the Committee on April 26 & 27 2004. PR\528730EN.doc PE 343.922 EN EN Introduction The construction of the Vuosaari Port and hinterland has been discussed by the Helsinki authorities and planned by them for over twenty-five years. Long before their membership of the European Union, the Finnish Government and Helsinki Municipal Council agreed that an alternative cargo port was required in order to relieve pressure on the three existing ports of Helsinki and their urban environment. The economy of the Helsinki region has always been linked to the functioning of the port facilities and competitive development of the Turku port, further to the west, imposed sharper economic considerations on the decision-making process in Helsinki. Construction work finally began at the beginning of 2003 and it is the intention of the Helsinki authorities to complete the Vuosaari harbour and the related Vuoli traffic connections by 2008. The harbour is being built and financed by the Port of Helsinki and the costs of the hinterland transport links are further shared with the Finnish Government. The European Union has provided 4 million euros in funding so far, of which 2 million was for planning. The Port Authorities maintain that not only will the new port be the most modern and technologically advanced of the Baltic region, it will also be unique on a European scale. They also state that it is a matter of honour and duty to implement the harbour in such a way that it will be in harmony with the surrounding natural environment, recreational areas and residential areas. Indeed, the promoters of the project fix as their objective that the harbour will be a model example of how efficient technology, functional logistics and respect for the environment can be combined in a creative manner. The new port plans to handle 12 million tonnes of cargo per year. The removal of cargo business to Vuosaari will liberate the Jatkasaari island area, currently the home of one of the main cargo terminals, and permit extensive redevelopment of the whole maritime district. Similar developments will occur in Kalasatama district and other neighbouring areas. In short, there is much more at stake with the development of Vuosaari Port than one might imagine to begin with, and perhaps as a result, with the stakes being so high, complaints about the environmental impact of the development on sensitive conservation areas have not been given much credence. The essential issues that are raised regarding the Vuosaari project by the petitioners, and in particular by the Finnish Association of Nature Conservation, are not related to the need to develop viable alternative cargo port facilities for Helsinki. The fundamental problem lies with the fact that the Vuosaari area was designated in 1998 as part of the Mustavuori herb- rich forest and Ostersundom bird wetlands area which are protected by the provisions of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC, and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC as Natura 2000 areas. Accordingly, it is imperative that the rules thus established at European level be strictly applied by the Finnish authorities and the petitioners have sought the support of the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament in order to ensure that the objectives of Community Law are safeguarded. Any weakening of the rules governing the implementation of the PE 343.922 2/8 PR\528730EN.doc EN Habitats Directive could constitute a very dangerous precedent which could undermine the Directive’s force and integrity. Given that the Helsinki authorities and the national authorities in Finland were fully aware that the port development and corresponding road and rail links were planned on a site protected by EU legislation, it is a subject of some concern to the Committee that a preliminary ruling was never requested from the European Court of Justice, under the terms of Article 234 of the Treaty. The Environment Ministry informed the delegation in Helsinki that this had been considered, but was then deemed unnecessary by the Supreme Administrative Court. Had that course of action been pursued at the time, much of the ensuing controversy would not have arisen. As it is, the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling has the power of precedent as a 'yearbook ruling', and if it is allowed to stand unchallenged, it could considerably undermine the correct application of the Habitats Directive across Europe. Obligations of the Finnish Authorities and European Law. The Finnish Authorities did organise an assessment of the Vuosaari area which concluded, to begin with, that the building of the port and the related infrastructure development would significantly weaken the conservation value of the area which is an integral part of the Natura 2000 network since 1998. As a result the Environment Ministry could have taken measures to obtain a derogation from the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) which is a perfectly legitimate exercise to undertake as long as all the conditions for such a derogation are met. (In fact in December 2001 a derogation proposal had been drafted but was withdrawn as a result of pressure from the Council of State's Justice Chancellor for reasons which remain, shall we say, obscure.) If there had been any doubt about the matter the precautionary principle should have been applied and a derogation sought. Instead they subsequently appear to have revised their findings to understate the impact, claiming certain species were no longer present anyway. The revised findings were held to be spurious by all qualified experts who were consulted, except one. They were also criticised strongly by the European Environment Bureau for this, which addressed a stern reminder to the Environment Ministry stating: "The conditions of a Natura 2000 site should not be allowed to degrade and should certainly not be expected to do so in such a short period of time. Member States are expected to maintain and guarantee favourable conservation status". Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992. PR\528730EN.doc 3/8 PE 343.922 EN Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive states inter alia "In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it would not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public." Paragraph 4 of Article 6 states inter alia "If in spite of a negative assessment of the implications of the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. It shall inform the Commission of the compensatory measures adopted. Where the site concerned hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest." With regard to the above paragraphs, some preliminary remarks are important, and they refer to the role of the European Commission in this process. At no time since the Committee referred this petition to the Commission in July 2002, has the Committee been told by the Commission that it has been informed by the Finnish authorities of any possible compensatory measures related to this project. Secondly, as far as we know, the Commission has not been requested for its opinion by the Finnish authorities, in order to prepare the way for a possible derogation. None of the four written replies from the Commission to the Committee so far received mention a derogation request. Has the Commission raised this option with the Environment Ministry? Or have they been left completely outside the loop? On what basis did they agree for EU funding to be made available? Why has the Commission still not reached any conclusions? We know that in July 2000 the Commission had questioned the way in which the protected area was delimited because it drew the attention of the Finnish authorities to the fact that ten species of Annex 1 birds were excluded from the site.1 The European Court of Justice has moreover referred in its rulings to the fundamental importance of ornithological criteria for site delimitation. Why did the Commission not draw this to the Committee's attention? Plans or projects involving special protection areas should not be carried out at all, without an agreed derogation, unless it can be proved with a high degree of certainty that they would not adversely affect the integrity of the Natura 2000 site. Clearly, to most people we met, this project does dramatically affect such a site.
Recommended publications
  • Linking Domestic and European Politics

    Linking Domestic and European Politics

    81 FIIA Working Paper May 2014 Tuomas Iso-Markku LINKING DOMESTIC AND EUROPEAN POLITICS FINNISH MEPS AND THE VOTES THAT SHAPED THE 7th EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Tuomas Iso-Markku Research Fellow The Finnish Institute of International Affairs The Finnish Institute of International Affairs Kruunuvuorenkatu 4 FI-00160 Helsinki tel. +358 9 432 7000 fax. +358 9 432 7799 www.fiia.fi ISBN: 978-951-769-414-8 ISSN: 2242-0444 The Finnish Institute of International Affairs is an independent research institute that produces high- level research to support political decision-making and public debate both nationally and internationally. The Institute undertakes quality control in editing publications but the responsibility for the views expressed ultimately rests with the authors. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUction 4 2. VotinG IN THE EP: A BALANCING act 6 2.1 At the intersection of domestic and European politics 6 2.2 Determinants of MEP voting 7 3. FINNISH POLITICS AND THE EU: CONSENSUS AND CONFRontation 10 3.1 Non-politicised cleavage 10 3.2 Parliamentary election of 2011 as a watershed 11 3.3 Finnish parties and the European Parliament 12 4. FINNISH MEPS AND 17 KEY EP votes IN 2009–2014 14 4.1 Issues of national importance 16 4.2 Issues with links to domestic politics 19 4.3 European issues 20 4.4 Voting patterns among the Finnish MEPs 23 5. SUMMARY 25 3 1. INTRODUCTION It has long been acknowledged that the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) act in a complex political setting. They represent national parties and are elected nationally, and their campaigns are often built around domestic issues.
  • Vuoli Tunnels Finland

    Vuoli Tunnels Finland

    PROJECT SHEET Vuoli Tunnels Finland Construction SKANSKA TEKRA OY/ SKANSKA BS/SIEMENS FINLAND/FINNISH ROAD ENTERPRISE Consulting Engineer KALLIOSUUNNUITTELY ROCPLAN OY LTD. Owner VUOSAARI HARBOUR COMPANY & FINNISH ROAD ADMINISTRATION Products ADMIX C-1000 NF Project Type HARBOR TUNNELS Xypex Admix C-1000 NF played critical role in shotcrete waterproofing of Vuosaari Harbor tunnels. When city planners and engineers began The exposed rock interiors of the road and rail drawing up designs for a new harbor that tunnels were reinforced with deep anchor could relieve the pressure on the Port of Hel- bolts and coated with a base layer of standard sinki, the need for easy access via roads and shotcrete to a thickness of 60 - 80 mm. On rails was a critical requirement. The new USD top of this base layer, a 40 - 60 mm layer of $757 million Vuosaari Harbor, located about shotcrete mixed with Xypex Admix C-1000 NF 15 km northeast of central Helsinki, was built crystalline waterproofing was applied to pro- on 150 hectares (370 acres), which includes vide a permanent seal against moisture intru- 90 hectares that had to be filled in. sion. Finally, a 25 mm layer of standard shot- crete was applied to the innermost surface. The critical port of Helsinki, Finland, could no The new harbor, completed in 2009, can han- longer handle all of the trade that was flowing in dle more than 12 million tons of unitized cargo More than 28,000 kg (61,700 lb) of Xypex Ad- and out of its docks. The decision was made to (e.g., containers, trucks, trailers, etc.) annu- mix was needed to treat the waterproofing build a new, larger port 15 km east of the city in ally.
  • BT Vuosaari AP Project Sheet EN OK.Indd

    BT Vuosaari AP Project Sheet EN OK.Indd

    PROJECT SHEET VUOSAARI HARBOUR CENTRE, HELSINKI, FINLAND AP JETTY 180 M, SIX DOLPHINS AND TWO RAMPS A FEATURES QUANTITIES Client Port of Helsinki Jetty, total length 180 m Location Vuosaari Harbour Centre, Steel bridges 6 steel bridges, Helsinki, Finland each 3 x 24 m Period September 2011 – May 2012 Dolphins 6 concrete dolphins Contractor Terramare Oy Tubular steel piling works D762/610 SCOPE 738 m / 42 piles Construction of a 180 metre long AP jetty, six dolphins and Concrete ramps 2 ramps, each 30 m two ramps. Steel structures 200 tonnes Concrete structures 1,390 m3 MAIN PLANT Floating crane Kahmari 2 Drill barge Pora-Eero Self propelled barge David Piling unit Junttan PM25 B Tugs Koli, Hevi A View of the AP jetty. B View of the Vuosaari Harbour Centre. Work pontoons Paalu, Upi Other plant Grove 635, Volvo L90 Terramare Oy Laurinmäenkuja 3 A INTRODUCTION > PO Box 14, FI–00441 HELSINKI, FINLAND P +358 9 613 621 | F +358 9 6136 2700 www.terramare.fi PAGE 1/2 VUOSAARI HARBOUR CENTRE, HELSINKI, FINLAND AP JETTY 180 M, SIX DOLPHINS AND TWO RAMPS INTRODUCTION The 180 metre long AP jetty, built 180 METRE LONG AP JETTY at Helsinki’s Vuosaari Harbour, Dolphins (6) was implemented on the basis of Terramare’s alternative plan. The A Ramp 30 m jetty increased the harbour’s ca- 12 m pacity with two berths for Ro-Ro cargo vessels. The contract also A Ramp 30 m included two 30 metre wide concrete ramps, built on both sides of the jetty. 24 metre long steel service bridges (6) C CONSTRUCTION OF THE AP JETTY Terramare began the AP jetty contract in September 2011.
  • Green Parties and Elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Green Par Elections

    Green Parties and Elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Green Par Elections

    Chapter 1 Green Parties and Elections, 1979–2019 Green parties and elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Wolfgang Rüdig Introduction The history of green parties in Europe is closely intertwined with the history of elections to the European Parliament. When the first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in June 1979, the development of green parties in Europe was still in its infancy. Only in Belgium and the UK had green parties been formed that took part in these elections; but ecological lists, which were the pre- decessors of green parties, competed in other countries. Despite not winning representation, the German Greens were particularly influ- enced by the 1979 European elections. Five years later, most partic- ipating countries had seen the formation of national green parties, and the first Green MEPs from Belgium and Germany were elected. Green parties have been represented continuously in the European Parliament since 1984. Subsequent years saw Greens from many other countries joining their Belgian and German colleagues in the Euro- pean Parliament. European elections continued to be important for party formation in new EU member countries. In the 1980s it was the South European countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain), following 4 GREENS FOR A BETTER EUROPE their successful transition to democracies, that became members. Green parties did not have a strong role in their national party systems, and European elections became an important focus for party develop- ment. In the 1990s it was the turn of Austria, Finland and Sweden to join; green parties were already well established in all three nations and provided ongoing support for Greens in the European Parliament.
  • Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe

    Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe

    Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy www.psocommons.org/rhcpp Vol. 1: Iss. 4, Article 3 (2010) Waiting for the Nuclear Renaissance: Exploring the Nexus of Expansion and Disposal in Europe Robert Darst, University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth Jane I. Dawson, Connecticut College Abstract This article focuses on the growing prospects for a nuclear power renaissance in Europe. While accepting the conventional wisdom that the incipient renaissance is being driven by climate change and energy security concerns, we argue that it would not be possible without the pioneering work of Sweden and Finland in providing a technological and sociopolitical solution to the industry’s longstanding “Achilles’ heel”: the safe, permanent, and locally acceptable disposal of high-level radioactive waste. In this article, we track the long decline and sudden resurgence of nuclear power in Europe, examining the correlation between the fortunes of the industry and the emergence of the Swedish model for addressing the nuclear waste problem. Through an in-depth exploration of the evolution of the siting model initiated in Sweden and adopted and successfully implemented in Finland, we emphasize the importance of transparency, trust, volunteerism, and “nuclear oases”: locations already host to substantial nuclear facilities. Climate change and concerns about energy independence and security have all opened the door for a revival of nuclear power in Europe and elsewhere, but we argue that without the solution to the nuclear waste quandary pioneered by Sweden and Finland, the industry would still be waiting for the nuclear renaissance. Keywords: high-level radioactive waste, permanent nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power in Europe, nuclear politics in Finland and Sweden © 2010 Policy Studies Organization Published by Berkeley Electronic Press - 49 - Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol.
  • Field Trip Report the World Heritage Committee Meetings

    Field Trip Report the World Heritage Committee Meetings

    Field Trip Report World Heritage Convention, Helsinki, Finland. By: Francois LeBlanc, Head, Field Projects There were more than 350 participants to the twenty-fifth session of Finlandia Hall, Helsinki. UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee. I had not participated to these Designed by Finnish architect Aalto Alvar meetings for some time and it was a great pleasure for me to re-connect with some old acquaintances. The meetings have become quite a complex forum. The working papers given to us at registration were more than 3.5 inches thick. I will not attempt to summarize what happened during the meetings because this will be done by the WHC secretariat and will be available shortly on the web at http://www.unesco.org/whc. I will simply highlight some of the Finlandia Hall. Location of the World Heritage activities that may be of interest to us and list the title of the documents Committee meetings given to us. Just the list is two pages long! Should you be interested in consulting some of the documents, please contact Annette. What may also be of interest is that when such meetings are held in countries that I don’t know very well, I usually try to update my knowledge of the country’s history before I leave. I have found a brief history of Finland and will share it with you in this report. I hope that you will also Finlandia Hall find it interesting. The World Heritage Committee Meetings The meetings were held in Helsinki at Finlandia Hall, a building designed by the famous architect Alvar Aalto, and were impeccably organized by the Finns.
  • Rostock 12 Th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, 31 May – 2 June 2012

    Rostock 12 Th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, 31 May – 2 June 2012

    Rostock 12 th Baltic Sea Geotechnical Conference, 31 May – 2 June 2012 MASS STABILISATION IN CONSTRUCTION OF SOFT SUBSOILS AND IN ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICS AT CITY OF HELSINKI Juha Forsman / Ramboll Finland Oy, Osmo Korhonen / City of Helsinki, Jorma Havukainen / Ramboll Finland Oy, Kata Kreft-Burman / Ramboll Finland Oy ABSTRACT The city of Helsinki is under a continual process of constructing the new districts and improving the already existing ones. The examples of typical ground construction and preconstruction problems faced in Helsinki include the following issues: construction has to be performed in an area with very soft postglacial clay or peat as the areas considered more suitable from the geotechnical point of view have already been constructed, shortage of fill and embankment materials, and shortage of landfill areas for surplus soils. The mass stabilisation technology proves to be a cost effective solution to these challenges. This article presents some examples of how mass stabilisation has been applied to solve challenges in various construction sites in the city of Helsinki during the last 20 years. 1. INTRODUCTION Mass stabilisation is a ground improvement method where binder is mixed into peat, mud or soft clay. The procedure is carried out with the help of a mixing tool installed on an excavator machine (Figure 1). The mixing tool has been invented in Finland in the beginning of 1990’s. The technology was initially developed for the purpose of stabilising soft peat and clay. As the mass stabilisation technology has evolved new fields of application have been introduced, for instance the treatment of dredged mud and contaminated soils.
  • Master's Guide

    Master's Guide

    15.1.2019 MASTER'S GUIDE Vessel Traffic Services The provisions on vessel traffic services are laid down in the Vessel Traffic Service Act 623/2005 and in the Government Decrees on Vessel Traffic Service 763/2005, 1798/2009, 1304/2011 and 1216/2018. PARTICIPATION IN VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES Vessels of 24 metres in length overall or more are obliged to participate in the vessel traffic services. When navigating in the VTS area, vessels are required to maintain a continuous listening watch on the working channel used in the area. Furthermore, vessels are obliged to obey the rules relevant to the traffic in the VTS area. More detailed instructions about the required reports and working channels can be found in the regional VTS guides. Vessels navigating in the VTS area, which are not obliged to participate in the vessel traffic services, are recommended to maintain a listening watch on the working channel in the VTS area or sector in question. OPERATIONAL HOURS AND LOCATION OF VTS CENTRES In Finland the vessel traffic services (VTS services) are operated by Vessel Traffic Services Finland Ltd (VTS Finland). The sea areas at the Finnish coast are divided into six VTS areas. These are Bothnia VTS, West Coast VTS, Archipelago VTS, Hanko VTS, Helsinki VTS and Kotka VTS. In addition, Saimaa VTS operates in the Saimaa deep water fairway. Along the coast VTS services are provided 24 h/day throughout the year. There may be operational interruptions due to technical problems or an unexpected shortage of personnel. Information about the interruptions is given as navigational or local warnings.
  • Port of Helsinki Development Programme 2022

    Port of Helsinki Development Programme 2022

    SERIE B 2012:10 Port of Helsinki Development programme 2022 PORT OF HELSINKI PUBLICATION 13.11.2012 1(15) Development programme for the parts of the Port of Helsinki 2022 Page 1. Introduction 2 2. Prognosis of market and demand development 3 2.1 Passenger and vehicle traffic 3 2.1.1 Tallinn traffic 3 2.1.2 Stockholm traffic 4 2.1.3 St. Petersburg traffic 4 2.1.4 Cruise traffic 5 2.2 Cargo traffic 5 2.2.1 Tallinn traffic 6 2.2.2 Stockholm traffic 6 2.2.3 St. Petersburg traffic 6 2.2.4 Other cargo traffic 6 2.3 The development of demand and competition based on ship type 2.3.1 Passenger ferry traffic 2.3.2 RoRo ferry traffic 2.3.3 Train ferry traffic 2.3.4 Container ship traffic 3 Port-specific examination 3.1 Katajanokka harbour 3.2 West Harbour 3.3 Vuosaari Harbour 3.4 South Harbour 4. Use of parts of the port until the year 2022 12 4.1 Katajanokka Harbour 13 4.2 South Harbour 13 4.3 West Harbour 14 4.4 Vuosaari Harbour 14 5. Operational development 15 2(15) 1. Introduction The development of traffic connections and port traffic is important for the business life and well-being of the Helsinki area. The Port of Helsinki supports this development by offering its customers – shipping companies, operators, exporters, importers and passengers – a functional and sufficient framework to manage foreign trade transport. The Port of Helsinki and the Helsinki area have developed in interaction with each other, which has resulted in industrial and commercial activity being centred around import, export and logistics, more than on average.
  • Ciudad Y Territorio Virtual

    Ciudad Y Territorio Virtual

    LOS MODELOS EN REALIDAD VIRTUAL EN LA TOMA DE DECISIONES Y EL TRABAJO DE EQUIPOS MULTIDISCIPLINARES JARKKO SIREENI Bussiness Manager Visualization ViaSys Oy Espoo – Finlandia www.viasys.com VICENTE CUÉLLAR MORO Director General ViaNova Systems Spain Madrid – España www.vianova.es En los países nórdicos es ya común apoyarse en modelos en RV a la hora de tomar decisiones urbanísticas. Las posibilidades de interacción con los modelos, y de representación de la realidad futura, nos permiten "caminar" por la ciudad que proyectamos para evaluar la conveniencia de nuestros proyectos. Creemos que es importante resaltar las diferencias entre las herramientas de presentación (animaciones o vídeos 3D) y herramientas que permiten interactuar con los modelos (RV). Las primeras permiten un mejor texturado e iluminación (los cálculos no se realizan en tiempo real, sino que está precalculado), pero está mejor calidad se realiza a costa de no permitir al usuario "ver" lo que le interesa, y necesitan unos elevados tiempo de cálculos de renderizado, haciéndolos menos ágiles que los modelos en RV. El resultado es que estas herramientas dejan de ser herramientas de "presentación" para integrase totalmente en el proceso de trabajo, incluso desde la etapas más tempranas. Se demuestran fundamentales a la hora de permitir el trabajo de equipos multidisciplinares, cuyas discusiones, ideas y propuestas se realizan en torno al modelo de Realidad Virtual, convirtiéndose el modelo en una herramienta clave para la toma de decisiones durante el proyecto. Como ejemplos prácticos se mostraran dos proyectos realizados por ViaSys Oy, la compañía Finlandesa de ViaNova, desarrolladora de nuestro módulo de realidad virtual Novapoint Virtual Map: El primer proyecto se realizó en el año 2000, en la ciudad de Lohja.
  • Factsheet: the Finnish Eduskunta

    Factsheet: the Finnish Eduskunta

    Directorate-General for the Presidency Directorate for Relations with National Parliaments Factsheet: The Finnish Eduskunta 1. At a glance Finland is a republic and a parliamentary democracy. The Finnish Parliament (Eduskunta) is a unicameral body. Its 200 deputies are elected by direct, proportional and secret universal suffrage for a mandate of four years. The Parliament enacts legislation, decides on the state budget, ratifies international treaties and oversees the Government. The Eduskunta meets in three major formations: the plenary session makes final decisions, the committees prepare the files and the parliamentary groups define the political orientations. The Eduskunta has quite extensive powers to formulate Finnish EU policy. Parliament’s position on EU affairs is generally expressed by the Grand Committee, which serves as Parliament’s EU committee. Finnish Constitution provides that the Eduskunta is involved whenever an EU dossier touches on the Eduskunta’s legislative or budgetary power and may also assume responsibility for other dossiers if either the Government or the Grand Committee (or the Foreign Affairs Committee for CFSP issues) so decides. The Grand Committee’s position is normative for the Government. A Finnish coalition government under Prime Minister Mr Antti Rinne (Social Democratic Party/ S&D) came into office on 06 June 2019. It is a 5-party coalition formed by the the Social Democratic Party (S&D), the Centre Party (Renew Europe), the Greens (Greens/EFA), the Left Alliance (GUE/NGL), and the Swedish People’s Party (Renew Europe). In early December 2019, Mr. Rinne resigned from his post as Prime Minister and replaced by the then Minister for Transports, Ms.
  • Helsinki Eastern Harbour Sörnäistenranta and Hermanninranta Invited Architectural Ideas Competition 22. 10. 2004 – 22. 4. 2005 Evaluation Report

    Helsinki Eastern Harbour Sörnäistenranta and Hermanninranta Invited Architectural Ideas Competition 22. 10. 2004 – 22. 4. 2005 Evaluation Report

    Helsinki Eastern Harbour Sörnäistenranta and Hermanninranta Invited Architectural Ideas Competition 22. 10. 2004 – 22. 4. 2005 Evaluation report Helsinki Eastern Harbour – Architectural Ideas Competition 1 © The City of Helsinki City Planning Department 2005 Graphic Design: Raija Juntunen Graphic Design of the Publication Series: Timo Kaasinen ISSN 0787-9024 ISBN 952-473-468-0 2 Helsinki Eastern Harbour – Architectural Ideas Competition Index 1. Competition organization .................................................. 5 The general appearance and identity of the area ............ 38 1.1 Background of the competition ...................................... 5 The area’s relationship and connection to the 1.2 Organisers, purpose and nature of the competition ...... 6 surrounding urban structure ............................................. 38 1.3 Participants ..................................................................... 6 Treatment of the waterfront zone and utilisation of 1.4 Compensation ................................................................. 6 the maritime aspect ........................................................... 40 1.5 Jury.................................................................................. 6 Traffic solutions.................................................................. 40 1.6 Working committee ......................................................... 7 Costs and feasibility........................................................... 40 1.7 Experts ............................................................................