3.7.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 187 E/91 Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2001) The Commission has noted in its two latest Regular Reports (1) that there has been considerable progress in Slovakia in developing a good minority policy, in setting up the appropriate legislation and in establishing and supporting the relevant institutions. The Law on Minority Language can be seen in this context as an important step forward, bringing back national legislation into conformity with applicable international standards and specific recommendations from the Organisation for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Council of Europe and the Commission. The Commission also welcomes the adoption of the Slovak action plan to prevent all forms of discrimination as well as the initiative of the Slovak government to draft a specific Anti-Discrimination Act. However, the Commission has remarked a remaining gap between good policy formulation and imple- mentation on the ground. In its last Regular Report, it has called Slovakia on increasing its efforts in implementing legislation in various sectors as well as strengthening budgetary means and on paying more attention to the protection of minorities at the local level. (1) COM(2000) 711 final, COM(1999) 511 final. (2001/C 187 E/099) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3960/00 by Ioannis Averoff (PPE-DE) to the Commission (20 December 2000) Subject: Implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC, and a project in the Prefecture of Ioannina, Epirus Hydroelectricity Ltd, a subsidiary of TERNA Ltd., intends to build and operate a complex of four hydroelectric plants with a total generating capacity of 19,6 MW at a cost of GRD 13 billion at Tzoumerka in the south-eastern part of the Prefecture of Ioannina between the traditional villages of Kalarrytes, Syrrakos and Matsouki which were designated areas of outstanding natural beauty by the Ministry of Culture in 1975. The village councils of the three communities unanimously expressed their opposition to the company’s plans. However, despite the fact that they had not received the opinion of the prefectural council on this matter and despite the unanimous decisions by the village councils, the Ministries for the Environment, Development and Agriculture approved the environmental conditions for the project, without taking into account the opinions of these bodies, thereby violating national and Community law. Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment specifically provides in Article 6(2) that the public concerned must be given the opportunity to express its opinion before the project is initiated. Article 8 of the same Directive also specifically states that information gathered pursuant to Articles 5, 6 and 7 must be taken into consideration in the development consent procedure. Given that Member States are obliged to comply with the above provisions, will the Commission say: 1. What measures has it taken to ensure that the above Directive, and especially Articles 6 and 8 thereof, is implemented in Greece to the letter, and what action does it intend to take to address the violation referred to above? 2. If it has noticed the faulty transposition of the Directive which occurred in 1990 by Ministerial Decision 69269/5387/90, why has it failed to take action for a decade, and will it say what progress has been made in transposing Directive 97/11/EC (2)? (1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. (2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5. C 187 E/92 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3.7.2001 Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (28 February 2001) The Commission did not have any information about the project denounced by the Honourable Member. On the basis of the information forwarded, the Commission will write to the Greek authorities and ask for details about the impact assessment procedure followed for the project in question. As far as infringement procedures initiated against Greece are concerned, noting that measures to transpose Directive 97/11/EC (1) were not forthcoming in Greece, the Commission brought the matter before the Court of Justice on 11 October 2000 (case C 2000/374). In addition, considering that the national implementing measures transposing Directive 85/337/EEC (2) in Greece did not comply with the Directive, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure in 1993. The Commission had however to re-examine the objections it had raised in this procedure following improvements made by the Greek authorities in implementing this Directive in the 1990s. Following a new assessment, the Commission has found that some points in the Greek law still do not comply with certain provisions of the Directive and has decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice. (1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997). (2) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985). (2001/C 187 E/100) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3967/00 by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (20 December 2000) Subject: Environmental degradation of the Hondo Nature Reserve, Alicante, Spain The Hondo Nature Reserve (‘Parque Natural del Hondo’) is a wetland area located in the province of Alicante, Spain. This area, which is protected by the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, has been included in the Natura 2000 network under Directive 92/43/EEC (1), and has been declared an area of ‘Special Bird Protection’ under Directive 79/409/EEC (2). Despite these protection arrangements, the area is seriously affected by soil and water pollution. In the last few years, especially since 1997, thousands of birds of protected species, including the ‘Flag Species’ Marmaronetta angustrirostris and Oxyura leucocephala, have died (1545 in 1999) as a result of the heavily contaminated water of the Segura River that flows into the Hondo Reserve. The Segura river water currently contains extremely high levels of heavy metals lead, chrome and cadmium as well as dangerous levels of insecticides, herbicides and other pathogenic micro-organisms, according to recent independent studies carried out by the University of Miguel Hernández (Alicante) and the University of Murcia (3). Very little has been done to date by local and regional authorities to improve this situation and avoid the destruction of the Reserve’s fauna. What measures has the Commission taken to ensure compliance with the Birds and the Habitat Directives in order to guarantee the protection of the environment, and of the fauna and flora of the Hondo Nature Reserve? Can the Commission confirm that the competent regional government, the ‘Generalitat Valenciana’, has already received EU funding to protect the Hondo Reserve? If so, from which European programme or fund? Has the Commission assessed whether that funding has been properly used? If not properly used, will the Commission request financial compensation? (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. (2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1. (3) See Universitas Miguel Hernandez, División de edafología y química agrícola, Informe sobre la contaminación del río Segura, 22 March 1999; Universidad de Murcia, Departamento de ecología e hidrología, Informe sobre la contaminación de las aguas del río Segura (Vega Baja), 19 July 2000..