Committee on Petitions Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
The area in yellow is the buffer zone. The numbers indicate minefields placed by the Turkish army, which they have refused to remove and which remain until today. To the north, you can see the walled city and the port. Next, please. This is an aerial photograph of the area taken from south to north.
You can clearly see the defined buffer zone and, to the north, Varrocha and Fama Augusta. Next, please. And this is Fama Augusta again, from an aerial photo showing the sealed-off section. You can tell that on the coast side, there are a lot of hotels because Famagusta was known as a renowned resort town until it was captured by the Turkish forces. Next, please.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is my home in Fama Augusta as it was in April 2003 when I was first able to see it. You can see the fence placed upon it. It's upon the defense of the house with the red sign, with a Turkish soldier writing beneath it. It says "Forbidden Zone" and "No pictures allowed." I was arrested after I gave an interview to the Swedish state TV in 2006 in front of my house.
I was detained for several hours, and then I was released. And then, again in 2011, I was with two former members of the European Parliament, and we were arrested just outside, behind my house, by Turkish forces. I spent 3 days in custody of the Turkish forces just because I entered my house. Next, please. As you can see, this is my house on the inside.
You can see what so many decades of this use are doing to it. Everything is gone, including the door. Next, please. You can see that even the light fixtures have been taken. It has been completely looted.
Next, please. Everything is taken. Next, please. Even the wooden paneling on the walls was taken. I want you to understand that this was done systematically.
This was not a random act. This was done systematically everywhere in the sealed-off section. Next, please. In 1984, the United Nations Security Council issued resolution 550, which states it is deeply concerned about recent threats to the settlement of Arusha by people other than its inhabitants. Considers attempts to settle any part of Arusha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations.
And then, eight years later, resolution 789 of 1992 states that, with a view to the implementation of resolution 550, the area at present under the control of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus be extended to include Varosha. The idea was to extend the buffer zone from the south all the way to the north to include the sealed-off section. Next, please. We petitioned the European Parliament seeking the return of the shield of Section to its local inhabitants so that we could reestablish our lives in our homes, in our city, but also to establish in Fama Augusta a place where Turkish and Greek Cypriots will once again have the opportunity to interact, cooperate, and peacefully coexist. The return of the Fama Augusta shield of section to its local inhabitants will allow Greek and Turkish Cypriot citizens to overcome 52 years of enforced division.
Next, please.
The.
Speaker 4
The Committee on Petitions' first fact-finding mission report, in its recommendations, states that UNNC resolution 550 must be respected and that Turkey must withdraw its occupation military forces from the Republic of Cyprus, an EU territory, starting with the return of the Famagusta sealed-off section to its lawful inhabitants in compliance with the above resolution. Next, please. The second fact-finding mission in 2018, in its conclusions and possible way forward, recognized that significant concrete confidence-building measures, such as the return of Varosha to its local inhabitants with the prospect of Greek and Turkish Cypriot peaceful coexistence it entails, could be the only means to spearhead efforts toward reaching a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. Next, please. And its recommendations call for the European Commission, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EU Council, and all EU member states to table a new resolution in the UN Security Council calling for political and economic sanctions against Turkey for its act of aggression in the Eastern Mediterranean and for its noncompliance with resolutions 550 and 789 of the UN Security Council.
Next, please. In 2019, there were increased threats by Turkey that the Siltover section would be opened up and that they would turn this area into the so-called Las Vegas of the Mediterranean. We presented this possibility in December 2019 in front of the Committee on Petitions. Next, please. And this is the foreign minister of Turkey reviewing the area to be opened.
Next, please. The United Nations Security Council responded and said that no action should be carried out in relation to Varosha that is not in accordance with resolutions 550 and 789. That was in October 2019. Next, please. But of course, Turkey proceeded to open up certain sections in this area.
When we say open up, we mean make it accessible in October 2021. And just now, in January 2026, the Secretary-General, in his report for the UN Good Offices in Cyprus, said, "I reiterate my concern over the situation in the fenced-off area of Varosha and the lack of response to the Security Council's call for a reversal of the actions taken since the announcement of the partial reopening of the fenced-off town in October 2020." I further recall the council's decisions related to Varosha, notably resolutions 550 and 789, and the importance of adhering fully to those resolutions, reiterating that the position of the UN on this matter remains unchanged. I want to point out that everybody told Turkey not to proceed. Do not do this because you contravene Security Council resolutions.
Turkey did it anyway. Next, please. In October, there is a new leader of the Turkish Cypriot community who ran on a program for reunification in support of the agreed solution for the Cyprus problem according to the UN Security Council's resolution. Next, please. When I first wrote this petition, I drew inspiration from human doctrine.
And this is how the European Union grew and became what it is today. Europe will not be made all at once or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements, which will first create de facto solidarity. So, we have an area, the Siltos section of Fama Augusta, where the majority of the Greek Cypriot population of the city lived prior to 1974. Take it, take with it the walled city of Famagusta and the Famagusta Port, create an area which can be the first federal area of Cyprus, implement Akem Diaki, allow all lawful inhabitants in this area to return and rebuild their lives there so that Greek Cyprus and Turkish Cyprus can be together as citizens in a federal area in anticipation of the establishment of a new unified federal state of Cyprus.
This is just an idea, but something needs to be done because we cannot continue the division as we have before. Next, please. This is the shield of Section A, an aerial photo. Next, please. This is the walled city of Fama Augusta.
They are all next to each other. Next, please. And this is the Fama Augusta Port. Next, please. We petition your support to effect a concrete achievement, an initiative that would create de facto solidarity between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, a catalyst for the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Next, please. I have been coming to this institution now for 22 years. I want to remind you of an old adage. Justice delayed is justice denied, and this is where we find ourselves today. In my last 2018 presentation, I asked that I have the same rights as you do when you leave your work.
You go home. I can't for 52 years. Why should that be different? Why shouldn't I have the same rights? Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I appreciate your attention.
Speaker 7
I will try to be as brief as possible in referring the points to you. On behalf of the municipal council and the citizens of Fama Augusta, I wish to thank you very warmly for the constant support and the substantive role played by the petitions committee in your decisions, as a committee in the European Parliament, in supporting our city, Famagusta. Famagusta is a symbol of the contravention of international law. Since 1974, the city has been fenced off and occupied by the Turkish military, making it impossible for the legal citizens to exercise their rights. This is something which has happened since 1974, after the Turkish occupation, and it remains under the control of the Turkish military.
Speaker 6
Before 1974, it was a very important tourist resort and economic center in Cyprus. With the passing of time, it has been called a ghost city, and it actually looks like a modern city frozen in time. The name Varosha, which is the Greek name for Famagusta, comes from the word "varos." And it was used in the Middle Ages to describe the area outside the walls of the old city of San Agusta. And that is something that then progressed the city up until the twentieth century.
The destiny now of the city is controlled by the Turks. And if we look at the resolutions 550 and 789 of the UN, this is unacceptable. It is inadmissible. And that is why Fama Augusta is a very symbolic and important element in the negotiations for the Cyprus problem and a big, if you like, negotiating factor. It covers 16% of the surface of the city of Fama Augusta, and it contains beachfronts and hotels.
They have tried to use these assets, violating the rights of the rightful owners. And the UN has been the voice of protection of these rights, with these resolutions 550 and 789, as well as the activities in Cyprus. I won't repeat certain facts, but I would just like to tell you that, for example, in summary, after the talks at Crans-Montana, the first opening took place by the Turkish authorities, the Turkish Cypriot authorities in Cyprus. They also began to register the assets and the land. They wanted to develop it, and that was entirely unilateral on their part.
And they were thus violating the legal interests of the previous citizens. And we've also had visits from Turkish ministers and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Ersin Tatar. President Erdogan from Turkey organized a kind of picnic event directly violating the decisions of the UN. The European Parliament has expressed its deep concern about these provocative energy activities. And now we have, in key locations of Verrocia, the opening of businesses at key points in the city and a kind of salami-slicing approach, opening kiosks and cafes.
And we now see these pictures, which are very clear and are not the product of AI involvement at all. They are clear pictures. It now almost looks like a guided tour of a film set with its dusty facades and empty hotels. At the same time, we see tourist effects such as renting a bike and other organized commercial activities, a kind of shady tourism. So, President members, now with the election of Tufan Erhurman as leader, things may be better despite the attempts that Turkey is making to oppose them.
And we hope there will be a return to a united Cyprus. And Fama Augusta is key in all this in order to bring together Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots for a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Mr. President, I urge you and the members of the petitions committee to visit Fama Augusta. Your presence would send out a very strong message of support to the legal, rightful residents who have been without their homes for 52 years. And if this recognized the fact that the city should be freed, it would be something very important.
And I thank you very much for your attention and your dedication to our problem and the legal rights of the residents of Fama Gusta.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, sir. Now, Digi Reggio. Do we have a representative from Digi Reggio? You have the floor. 10 minutes.
Speaker 8
Thank you very much. Honorable Chair, honorable member of the parliament, Mr. Afento. Afento. Sorry for the pronunciation. Horrible.
Dear Mayor, thank you very much for organizing this event for the revision of petition 733 of 2004. This is a petition that touches the lives of many people. The original inhabitants of Varosha and their descendants have been waiting for 50 years to be able to return to their homes. And we really feel it. We understand your frustration because, indeed, for 50 years, you have been waiting.
The same thing could be said for the Cyprus problem. We have attempted for 50 years to solve the Cyprus issue, but unfortunately, it has not been possible yet. We believe that a settlement of the Cyprus problem is the most viable path to achieving the return of Varosha. Of course, we strongly condemned the reopening of parts of Varosha as gravely infringing the UN resolution, as was said during the previous presentation. We, as a commission, are fully committed to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, and we keep working towards this goal, which would also settle the issue of Russia.
We are encouraged by the fact that the current attempt of the UN to revive the discussion on a settlement of the Cyprus problem. We are supporting the work of the UN. As you know, last year, an EU special envoy was appointed to that effect. And we hope that in a renewed effort to solve this issue, we will this time manage. We are also very touched and encouraged by the fact that this petition is not just asking for the return of the buildings to their legitimate owners, but it also proposes a reconciliation project.
So this is very much appreciated, and it's the line along which we are also working as a commission. We have many confidence-building measures that we carry out. And of course, we are always open to exploring new opportunities and new projects to be implemented. So I would like to conclude by saying that we want to reassure you that we spare no effort to solve this issue, and we will do our best to not let another 50 years pass before you are able to return to your home. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. And let's move on to political groups. I give the floor to Mister Furkas on behalf of the APP.
Speaker 11
Thank you very much, Chairman. I'm not going to say a lot because I think you've heard the history of the situation. Indeed, over 52 years, we've heard about it. And during the last 22 years, Mr. Aftentio has been coming to the European Parliament. So, what are we going to do?
Speaker 9
This is a sadistic situation, and it is sadistic to deprive people of their homes. You go there like a tourist, have a drink, and see your house, which has been destroyed. So I address the commission as well about this. If we put all the resolutions in a line, we will see they reach almost to Varoshy. We don't need words anymore.
We don't need anything else. We want action. Mister Erhurman has been elected, and we're pleased about that. He seems a bit more reasonable in terms of a solution. But why hasn't he done something about Varosha?
It's because Turkey commands. Ankara has the situation in hand. We want to be safe in Europe. We want to have Turkey in our institutions. We want to give Turkey a role, but look at what is happening in the occupied part of Turkey.
Speaker 10
We continue like that. We will have many Voroshas in Europe. Thank you very much, Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to remind you and to explain that this is a sadistic situation that must be prevented.
Okay.
Speaker 14
To echo what has already been said, especially by the petitioner himself. All that needs to be said, Mr. Chairman, has already been said. That's why I would concentrate on just a few points, especially on the fact that we need, first of all, to respect the procedures of this committee and focus on our petition. Second, Mr. Akshindiw started this process quite a few years ago. With his persistence, we managed to come to a point in 2018 where we had a fact-finding mission.
Speaker 12
And now, from that, we have European Parliament positions, and I'm going to read one of them straight from the text. It is a matter of, I'm sorry. It is also clear that Turkey holds the European Parliament's resolutions in total disrespect. And then it goes on the next line. Therefore, it is a matter of enforcing existing UN Security Council resolutions.
Enforcement. Just like my colleague said, no more resolutions. We have two options. Either somehow, with the help of the European Commission, build up confidence-building measures starting with Varosha or proceed with sanctions on Turkey. No more resolutions.
And a final word, a word of admiration. Mister Chairman, I was born in the occupied area of Cyprus as well. I was a refugee kid of 1974, but I need to say something to Mr. Aksandil and the mayor of Fama Augusta. Justice delayed is justice denied. But at the same time, those of us who truly believe in the values of the EU strongly believe that the fight for justice is a fight for dignity.
That's why I expect my personal admiration, and they will always find me on their side because their fight is our fight, and it's a fight for Europe. Thank you very much.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much, Chair. Now, first of all and above all, I would like to express all of my gratitude to the mayor and the petitioner. We are at your side. We stand beside you in this very important issue, and this is also important for the stability of the region. International law must be respected.
Speaker 19
UN resolutions should also be respected. And in the meantime, we need to support peaceful dialogue and restore trust between the parties. We are also ready to hear information from the European Commission on the ongoing procedures of what has happened so far, and we need to support local cultural communities with related measures. We would like to be informed about those. Concerted legal negotiations must be carried out, negotiations for peace in the long term should continue, and the petition should remain open.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 15
Thank you very much, Chairman. I would like to make a slight correction. There are no elections in an illegal entity in an illegal place. So, having clarified that, I would say that the people commanding are the Turks in Turkey. Mister Erhurman is following orders from them.
Speaker 16
And now we have a ghost city in the middle of Europe. And it is under occupation, so Europe is under an obligation to act immediately. Since we entered the European Union in 2004, 22 years have passed. And we've already had a presidency. So now we're having our second presidency, 14 years later.
What has changed in Fam Augusta? Well, now we have people taking selfies with the occupying force. And we have these newly achieved facts happening on the ground there. We have a provocation. And the European Union has closed its mouth and does not react.
We talk about confidence-building measures. We talk about the Turkish Cypriots. We talk a lot about the Russian aggression against Ukraine and criticize Russia. And what about confidence measures there? So, we're not asking for anything illegal.
We're asking what is something that is self-evident. We want to be able to exercise our rights. We don't want the division of Cyprus into sectors or zones. And we want the refugees to be able to go back to their homes, to Famagusta, and to their legal, rightful homes. And we want the human rights of those people to be respected in Cyprus.
We have rights. It shouldn't just be the Cyprus MEPs talking about this. It should be the European Union on the side of Cyprus, defending our rights and preventing the Turkish military presence in Cyprus.
Thank you.
On behalf of?
Speaker 20
I would like to thank the petitioners for bringing back this petition, and thank you for your persistence. And it's good that we are actually bringing it back because, as a parliament, we are talking a lot about the military conflicts going on in Palestine, Gaza, and Ukraine, and somehow we forgot. Luckily, there is no military conflict, but we forgot, you know, that justice and peace were not fulfilled on the Cypriot Island. I, myself, am coming from Croatia, so it's not that everyone is only from Cyprus talking today. The country also had a military aggression and was occupied in part of the territory.
Speaker 21
And I know how important it was for the people, even during the occupation, to come and visit their homes, and how that was really one of the objectives pushed from the Croatian side—that people should, even if the territory is occupied, be allowed to approach their homes. And maybe you don't know, but today the occupation has ended. We have full control over our territory. But at one period, there was a transition period helped a lot by the UN, UN peacekeeping mission, called peaceful reintegration of Croatia, where for 4 years, we actually managed during the occupation to establish the dialogue and return the territories without any bullets. So it was a really fully successful and peaceful mission conducted from '96 to '98.
And by that, we actually finished the conflict in Croatia. So, it is possible. I don't claim it's something the Cyprus just took over because I know so many peaceful peace and reconciliation initiatives that have been launched in the past, as this conflict is much older than the one that was in Croatia. But, unfortunately, years and years later, we still don't see that justice is delivered to the people, firstly. So, from my position and the positions of the Greens, we do support this petition.
Although I'll be honest, we are not optimistic. You know? But this is nothing; this is not something that should break your enthusiasm because, you know, peace sometimes takes years to be achieved. And maybe it's really time to see and explore from the Commission side what the European Union, apparently a key peaceful project in the world, can do and try—not to give up, but to give another chance to find a way to establish dialogue, and most importantly, how people can go to their homes. So we support that this petition stays open.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And now, on the left, Madam Georgiou. Mr. Georgiou. Oh, okay. Perfect.
Thank you.
Speaker 23
You, chairman. I would like to express my esteem, rather, I'm sorry, for those who have submitted this petition for Mr. Aftentio. Because despite the bitterness, anger, and sadness that exist and that he described, I have managed to detect a very correct approach. I agree with what was said before by my Croatian colleague: the problem is difficult to solve and can only be resolved through a peaceful process. You know, Fama Augusta isn't just any old city.
Listen carefully. Fama Augusta is an important, wonderful city from the historical, cultural, archaeological, and economic points of view. Famagusta can be compared to two other cities, Stalingrad and Mesolongi, from a historical point of view. Three cities, which opposed to the very bitter end, Famagusta fought against the Turks and held out in 1570 for one year. Unfortunately, in 1974, the city was taken without any bullets flying.
It was just taken. They walked in, as it were. Now, negotiations are ongoing for the solution of the Cyprus question. And indeed, Fama Augusta is a symbol. And it is something very bad, if you like, in terms of international law that has not been respected.
Everyone has been sad to hear the words of Mr. Aventio about the situation in Fama Augusta. Please listen carefully and support him. Otherwise, what are the European Parliament and the Commission doing vis-à-vis Turkey? Turkey is indulging in provocations in the Eastern Mediterranean regarding its EEZ, the maritime area.
And we know what's happening in the country itself, in Turkey, where they're imprisoning all the opponents. And yet, at the same time, we are engaging in dialogue with them, and we're giving them visas. We're allowing them to be part of SAFE. Isn't this a shame for Europe? Is that what Europe is about?
Chairman, it's not just Ukraine and Greenland that are important at the moment. Also Gaza, of course, but also Cyprus. And the authorities must respect the principles upon which Europe was built: the European Commission and the European Parliament.
Speaker 25
Thank you very much, Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, Fama Augusta has citizens who were ejected from their homes in 1974, and the area remains under military occupation. And this is completely in contrast to the resolutions of the UN and the decisions of the European Union. The Petitions Committee itself has already recognized that there is a violation of human rights and international law. Nevertheless, the European Commission turns the other way and attributes responsibility elsewhere.
But human rights are not a question of negotiation, ladies and gentlemen; therefore, they are not a question for the commission. On the basis of Article 21, the European Union must respect human rights in its international relations. Turkey is a candidate country. Therefore, it must comply with the resolutions of the UN and respect the property of European citizens. Otherwise, this is not a neutral situation.
It is depriving European citizens of their property and, therefore, of their human rights. And therefore, I ask specifically: what can the European Commission do to return this property to the citizens of Fama Augusta? What measures will be taken to stop this violation?
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Now we're going to have the second round of questions. Mr. Bélâres, EPP.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, Chairman. I would, first of all, announce my support for this petition and warmly thank the representatives of Augusta and someone who has also insisted on this and worked on this for 22 years. Colleagues, the situation of Fama Augusta is dramatic. People were expelled from their houses, and they still do not have their homes or their assets. And that has happened for 22, 52, I'm sorry, years.
The city has been fenced off since 1974. And Turkey is trying and continuing to be in contempt of resolutions of the UN and the European Parliament. This is a problem. Let me say quite clearly, we rightly support Ukraine, and the principle is correct. However, we should not forget to support that policy for our Cypriot brothers in any way we can.
This policy must be implemented with the same constancy as elsewhere. And it's not just a question of solidarity, but it's also to show that we are reliable in the current world situation. Otherwise, how will we be considered if we cannot protect our own people? So, the first step, ladies and gentlemen, is to apply sanctions to Turkey now. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Chairman. Chairman, fifty-two years later and twenty-two years after the introduction of this petition, the subject before the petitions committee today, on behalf of their rightful owners and residents, is something that must be addressed because we have resolutions. We have the resolution 5501789 of the UN, and this has to be applied. Mr. Alcantillo has described the recent developments in that city. And we had the famous picnic of the Turkish president, and they are now indulging in a salami-chopping, slicing approach to the area, and they have opened it slightly.
They have opened the area slightly, and they've turned it into a kind of theme park. This is not acceptable. We should not allow any further opening of the area in this European country. We should not allow Turkey to continue with its aim of chopping bits off Cyprus. So, in particular, after the change in the Turkish Cypriot community, a different leader, the European Commission, and the European Parliament should continue to be present.
The Commission and the Council must face their responsibilities and take the necessary initiatives here. Today, eight years since the last fact-finding mission to Famagusta from the committee, I believe the committee should return to Cyprus, and all European, I'm sorry, Cypriot MEPs should be involved so that we can face the new situation there. And, Chairman, may I ask you to leave this petition open and that we can also have another fact-finding mission to Sam Augusta? Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Chairperson. And above all, in keeping with the words already said by my colleague, Mister Bosinak, but also listening to this petition here, one which you know has been around for quite some time, but which has support from the citizens and a great deal of pain behind it as well. We believe that the European Parliament cannot fail to listen to a truly European issue. We're talking about Europe, or something right in the middle of European territory. The objective situation of international law not being fulfilled, and of it being violated by third parties.
Speaker 29
In this case, Turkey. Turkey, the state that has massacred people in Kovani, in Kurdistan, is the country that gets money from the European Commission to take on migrants who have been expelled. They're paid to take people who come from many continents and who have suffered quite a bit themselves. A country that does not live by the rule of law and does not fulfill human rights. And so, this petition is not only legitimate, but it is also legal.
It fulfills all three other requirements for the petition to remain open. And it also has something that I think my colleagues mentioned. I'm not from Cyprus, of course, but I am a human being. I'm not from Cyprus, but I am from Galicia. And I understand what issues arise when you think that the rights of peoples are not respected, which is the case here of land that has been confiscated, and people expelled from their homes, their homes stolen from them.
Speaker 31
And so, I think this is perhaps one of the most legitimate petitions that we've ever seen, and see how much unanimity there is here among us. That never happens in this committee. They boycotted petitions, you know. For example, Altria won with more than 100,000 people on the streets because it has been boycotted time after time. But I believe in the greater spirit of supporting a just petition, be it one that comes from the EPP or whoever it comes from, because this is fair.
Speaker 34
I want to share a personal story today. I'm 25 years old, and I'm not from the generation that lived through the war that happened in 1974 in my country and divided it. But my uncle is still missing since the invasion. I have never met my uncle. My father was seven years old when the invasion happened, and he saw my grandmother trying to commit suicide because she lost her son.
Speaker 33
And he was saying to her, "Mother, mother, think about us." So there is so much drama. There is so much, you see. All these Cypriot fellow members have their own stories. This needs to stop, but we are not happy. I think I represent the Cypriot people here, and we're not happy with the commission.
Speaker 32
We just hear words all the time, and we see now that we are on the 19th package of sanctions against Russia. And against Turkey, there is nothing. This is double standard. So we want to take action to solve the Cyprus problem. Thank you so much for listening to me, and thank you.
Speaker 33
And I really admire the way that you talk. It was amazing. One of the best petitions that I saw was the presentation and all this stuff. Thank you so much, and we love you all. And thank you all for your support, guys.
Speaker 3
Now, for two minutes, let's go back to the petitioners. You have the floor. You can summarize. Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I extend my thanks again to all the members who spoke before. Thank you for understanding what we have been going through. Thank you for understanding what we are trying to achieve.
What we are trying to do is turn this absolute negative into a positive and a way forward for the unification of Cyprus. The culprit here is Turkey, and that's where we need to focus. This committee, in the last fact-finding mission report, stated clearly that if Turkey does not support or adhere to the UNSC resolutions, there have to be sanctions. This needs to take place if, in the forthcoming time period, there is no prospect for the return of the suit of sections to its local inhabitants and for movement toward reunification. I have to say, I have listened to the commission seven or eight times now.
It's pretty much the same words. I understand where you're coming from, and this definitely is not personal, Julia. But the commission remains a disappointment because it forgets where it started. Okay. Again, I remind you of the Schumer declaration.
Europe was not built in a day, and Europe was not built according to a single plan. It was built step by step in achieving de facto relations with former adversaries, France and Germany. It's gone now. One generation, and it's gone. This is what we are trying to achieve in Cyprus.
Simple, we need your support. We need your help from this institution, but also from the Commission. And I am looking forward to, if, as they say, they are looking for new ideas. Well, okay, let's explore new ideas. Let's move forward. The stalemate, the status quo, should not be an option and is not an option.
It is hurting us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes.
Speaker 6
I would really like to thank you all for your warm support, and I would like to share some of my personal experiences. I was doing military service in 1974, and we did our best to defend our native land. But at the end of the day, we lost our homes. Six years ago, I lost my much-loved mother, who had gone to the hospital. And she said, "Please, my son, take me back home."
And he, I wasn't able to. Do you want to go to Limassol, where we were living, or Fama Augusta? And she said, "I want to go to Fama Augusta." Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. I want to thank all of the speakers and everyone who has supported our guests. I want to thank the petitioner. I want to thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Thank you for coming here. Thank you for inviting us to come to Fama Augusta. We will keep working on this petition. The petition remains open, obviously, and we are now waiting for more information from the European Commission. We are waiting for an updated reply from the commission.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your participation in this item of the agenda. Thank you. Now let's move on to item 12, petition 11,082,025 by Matteo Schwarco from Croatia on behalf of an alleged violation of EU environmental law by the construction of the port of Ndaila Belvedere in Croatia. The petitioner is in the meeting room.
So, dear petitioner, please show yourself. I am ChatGPT, an AI language model developed by OpenAI. How can I assist you today? Where are you?
Yes, please. The floor is yours, madam. 5 minutes.
Okay.
Yes, please. Madam.
Madam. Okay.
Speaker 35
Honorable members, my name is Matias Verko, and I come from Daila, a small coastal village in Istria, Croatia. Next slide, please. Okay. I'm not here today because we opposed the development, but because we asked for compliance with European Union law. Next slide, please.
The project in question is the construction of the public port Daila Belvedere, implemented by the Port Authority of Uma Novigrad and co-financed by EU funds. And our primary concern is the possible circumvention of the environmental impact assessment directive. Next slide, please. So, in the same small inland inlet, Dalla Carregador, there are three port projects: a local port in Dalla, and two ports, a local port and the county's sports port in Carregador. And so, together, they amounted to approximately 300 birds, located only 100 meters apart.
And the problem is this project has been assessed separately despite their proximity, and it is respectfully questioned whether this separation avoided the obligation to assess cumulative environmental effects as required under Directive 2011/92, as amended by Directive 2014/52, particularly Article 4 and Annex 3. Next slide, please. So you can see it much better.
Bigger picture.
Speaker 35
Let's say. And the next slide, please. Sorry. So our second concern also relates to Natura 2000 protections. The Daila Corregidor Inlet forms part of the Natura 2000 site, Aquatori Zapana Easter, or in English, Aquatorium of West Istria, designated as a special protection area under the Birds Directive 147 from 2009, and this area is home to several protected bird species.
Under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive, any plan likely to significantly affect a Natura 2000 site must undergo an appropriate assessment. I respectfully ask whether this obligation has been fully and effectively implemented, particularly considering the cumulative scale of these three projects. Next slide, please. Hmm. So, the construction work has already begun. Dredging and seabed alteration are taking place while the judicial appeal concerning the construction permit is still pending and not yet final.
If the permit were to be annulled, the environmental damage might already be irreversible. There are also discrepancies in publicly communicated project values, raising concerns about transparency and procedural safeguards in the management of EUCOM financing. So, you can see it on the slide. Next slide, please. Next slide.
Furthermore, there are reports of the use of inappropriate materials in construction and infill, which may further impact the coastal environment, as you can see on the next slide. So, they've been used in construction and demolition waste for the infill. And on the next slide, you can see the pollution of the shore in the inlet. So throughout our efforts, we came across over 10 different cases on the Adriatic Coast, and we also came across an independent environmental expert and retired court appointee, Milvana Arkopiewacz, who reviewed over 600 environmental assessment reports in Croatia and identified recurring deficiencies in the methodology and quality of these assessments. In many cases, submitted objections, like ours for example, are not properly investigated, and side inspections are rarely conducted.
So, we attempted to raise these concerns. Sorry. I'm not used to public speaking, and this is just a stress reaction. So, I'm sorry if I tend to look very emotional. So, we have attempted to raise these concerns since 02/2011. Next slide, please.
Okay. So, you can see our timeline. At the local, regional, and national levels, including public discussions and legal proceedings, such as the roundtable this July in our national parliament. And, unfortunately, I'm here today. So we turned to the European Parliament in its role to ensure that European law is effectively respected, and so respectfully ask the Commission to, on the next slide, please.
You will see what we ask. So, to verify compliance with the environmental impact assessment, particularly regarding cumulative impacts, verify compliance with the Birds Directive and Natura 2000 obligations, examine whether project segmentation may have limited the scope of the environmental assessment, and ensure that the EU funds are used in full compliance with EU environmental law. So, thank you for your attention.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. That was a very beautiful presentation, a beautiful speech, really moving. I'm sure you have managed to convince many of us here to support your petition. Now, I will give the floor to the Commission, DG Environment. Do we have someone from the commission?
You have the floor, Madam. Yes.
Speaker 36
Thank you, honorable Chair and honorable members of the committee. In essence, the petitioner, of course, opposes the construction permit sanctioned in March 2024 for the Port Daila Belvedere project in Croatia, managed by the port authority Umagh Novigrad. Also, the petitioner contends that the Port Diala Belvedere project is free from GCU environmental laws mainly for two reasons. The project will impact the neighboring Natura 2000 sites, and the authorities appear to have fragmented the port into smaller units to evade a complete cumulative environmental assessment. Regarding commission observations, I would like to say that the directive on the environmental impact assessment and the habitat directive, alongside Article 6(3), apply to port construction.
Speaker 39
According to the environmental impact directive, such construction necessitates screening to determine whether significant environmental impacts are likely. In the same vein, pursuant to the Habitat Directive, only plans or projects likely to have significant effects on a Natura 2000 site are subject to an appropriate assessment of their implications for the site, taking into account the site's conservation objectives. The project resides in Aquatore of West Istra, a bird's directive special protection area. Hence, this provision is also applicable. For projects requiring Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Habitats Directive assessments, member states may employ coordinated joint procedures.
Speaker 37
This happened in the present case. The Croatian authorities adopted a screening decision on 31st March 2017. The decision states that the port project does not necessitate a full environmental impact or appropriate assessment, as no significant impacts are expected. The decision was based on the prior evaluation of the ministry's Nature and Protection Directorate, which stated that significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites are not anticipated. This decision also includes measures for environmental protection and monitoring.
The commission lacks evidence indicating project segmentation in the other two ports concerned, according to the petitioner: a local port in Karigador and the county's sports port. No evidence has been provided showcasing the incorrect application of the mentioned directives, making demonstrations of EU environmental law breaches presently unfeasible. Apart from that, let me recall that, while the Commission holds treaty guardian duties, the Croatian authorities primarily ensure the correct application of EU law in individual cases. Consequently, national redress methods are considered fitting for petitioner claims, as the Croatian judge is also a European judge. These results come from the commission's enforcement policy explained in its communications from 2016, 2022, and 2025.
So, please let me conclude by saying that, due to a lack of substantial information demonstrating EU environmental law breaches and considering that national authorities are responsible for ensuring the correct application of EU law in individual cases, the Commission will not intervene further. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 43
Thank you, Chair. First of all, I want to compliment the petitioner for the emotional but very effective, very precise, and detailed exposition of the facts and the situation. Secondly, this situation, which, as you will notice, colleagues, comes to us very frequently, projects in the member states affecting communities, but the communities feel that they are not part of the decision and feel that European rules, which should be there to protect them, are either not implemented fully or not implemented very clearly. From what I have seen and from what I hear from the commission, there is still this question that the division of the project into different parts can lead to an artificial bypass of the applicable rules of the environmental impact assessment safeguards. So I hope that the commission can provide an answer in writing.
Speaker 42
And I think cases like this should not be neglected. And I find myself also when I see cases in Malta. We have a few cases pending which mention the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and other directives of the sort. And sometimes residents feel that there is no effective recourse to justice because, of course, the authorities are those who need to decide on the projects. Nobody is putting that into question.
Speaker 41
It should be the local authorities who decide what needs to be done. But there needs to be a more transparent way for European residents or European citizens to take their rights. And so I think we should keep this petition open. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Yes. Well, I am quite concerned about the situation. I agree with a great deal of the concerns that have already been mentioned. This is a case that we must speak about because environmental protection is an extremely important issue and important to each one of us. Quite frequently, we've seen various MEPs say this; it has been said by the Commission as well, that we're talking about some issue which is actually under the remit of the member state, which is also responsible for the assessment.
But we would be in agreement to ask for more information, trying to get more information from the committee on the environment as well as other competent authorities. As soon as we've gotten all the information we need, then I think we can have another exchange about this issue and then close the petition only at that moment. Thank you.
First.
Speaker 20
First of all, I would like to thank the petitioners for this very honest and emotional presentation. I like this committee because this is where you can actually feel what the people feel and think. We, in politics, often tend to get distanced from the people around us. And yet, you come here and tell us about what you're actually living and what you're facing. Now, this project, in my view, truly opens certain issues and has red flags that we need to react to.
I must say I cannot agree with the commission's approach, as the commission, in a way, would like to distance itself from this issue and leave it all to the national authorities. As we know, there is an issue at the national level. When implementing the environmental assessment, one should take into account the location and the nature of the action, in line with the existing directive on the assessment of certain projects on the environment. The fact is that Croatia did not transpose certain provisions of the directive back in March 2019 and was, in fact, warned for breaching EU law in that regard. So, the whole legislation at the national level has not been transposed properly and needs improvement.
Furthermore, talking about the cumulative assessment, it's really surprising that we have three projects, three ports in such vicinity, and yet there is no assessment. If there is one neighbor who is a troublemaker, that is going to be felt by their neighbors if they are close by. So, the same principle should apply here. We need to look at how the environmental impact assessment was done and whether it was done properly. Other issues arise from the fact that this study did not recognize that there were some endangered species here.
For example, in the sea, these people here, the petitioners, found endangered species. So, obviously, something was done or was not done right with the environmental impact assessment. If you are not aware, pen shells are specific shells that we have in the Adriatic Sea, and they are protected. Obviously, they claim that they did not exist there. There are other issues that were opened up by this petition, and I think that this needs to remain open.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
Colleagues, I was thinking that only in my country do they behave like this. But now I see that it's a system, and they do it in other countries, too. They build ports wherever they want. They create divisions. That doesn't seem to be an environmental strategic plan for the whole.
A no-cost benefits analysis. We know what the cost is to Natura and to the area. There's no engineer's report about the effects of the port on climate exchange, for example. And although we have these European directives, the Commission doesn't seem to want to check or control. And indeed, that is one of its tasks: to control and check whether the specific area is suitable, and it can ask the member state to provide the data.
Where are these environmental assessments? Do they exist? Do they not exist? Are they in compliance? Are they not in compliance?
The country is not in compliance. Therefore, it should be faced with repercussions. We have the court for this. So why do we have to deal with this in the Committee on Petitions, where we have to listen to all these problems that the citizens have? And these member states are in violation of the regulations.
I will certainly personally do everything I can to support this petition because I believe it has great significance. The residents are battling. They are constantly fighting, and we have to resolve this. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Now we can go back to the person who prepared it. Come in. Petition. Two minutes for you.
Speaker 35
I just want to ask you to leave the petition open. So, no. It's just frustrating when you need to find your own country. Because as we started on the local region, the project was just too big because it was not adequate for the location. It's a really shallow inlet, and I just wanted to, how do you say it, to our local...
Local.
Speaker 35
So, we addressed our local authorities, and all we wanted was to express our concern. We simply believed that the project was too big. We are not against development. We want there to be a port. We want berths, and so on.
But we simply wanted it to be done with measure. We don't need additional concrete. We don't need aggressive work on the beaches. However, they're planning to start mining the coast within a month, since that is a relatively shallow bay. So they need to go deep into the sea in order to do the work for the port.
All we wanted was for some of the institutions to really look into this and say, "Okay, this is really not in line with the special plan." And that's all we wanted to do. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. The petition remains open. We will request a written reply from the Commission. Thank you. I would like to thank the petitioner.
Item 13, petition 1524/2025 by Giacomo Graziani from Italy on behalf of Tuteliamo La Salute on the expansion of waste treatment facilities in Veneto and the need to safeguard current water resources accordingly.
The petitioner is here.
Speaker 47
Good afternoon. I present to Tutel Yamulla Salote, and I have a slideshow for you. Could I have the first slide, please?
Speaker 49
I have a wonderful area in the north of Italy. Geomorphological elements and Quaternary climate variations exist in that area, as well as natural oligomineral water. In Roman times, there was abundant water there, and it was transported via aqueducts. At the end of the 19th century, the city of Padua was the strategic point of supply. Now, we have 176 public aqueducts, and this is drinking water provided to schools, hospitals, and so on.
More than 300,000 people in the Veneto area are provided for. There are around 4,500 private wells, and these provide water independently from the ground. Until recently, this was all very well respected, and supply was sustainable. But from the '70s onwards, the territory was much exploited and the natural resources were badly affected. And the situation is irreversible now because of this so-called economic miracle in the Veneto area.
Many quarries exist, and this has badly affected the groundwater. The material has been used for the construction of motorways, roads, and so on. The quarries became landfills, first of all, for urban waste.
Slower.
Speaker 49
They became landfills, first of all for urban waste, and then for industrial waste containing heavy metals. In one of these areas, we have the particular company Silva operating, which has a landfill that is not dangerous, but also a processing plant dealing with heavy metals. Over the last months, unfortunately, we have found many problems with the PFAS, and there has been a large area contaminated coming from the building site of the superhighway, which is being built. And 20 quarries have therefore been placed or used in the territory itself. We've discovered PFAS in the air, and these are above the legal limits.
44,400 nanograms per liter. And just to remind you that, according to the European directive, the total should be less than 100 ng per liter. On 01/20/2025, in order to combat a program that existed to increase Silva's activities, we organized our committee, which today has more than 6,000 members. And we look into the safety of our water and the health of the people living in our two provinces.
Speaker 49
The new Silva project foresees the setting up of a very unhealthy plant, the most dangerous so far. And it is going to be processing 32,000 tons a year of healthcare waste, hazardous waste, and possibly infectious waste. It's going to store hundreds of tonnes of waste: solid waste and liquid waste, most of it hazardous. It's also going to treat an additional 70,000 tonnes per year of foundry sand, for a total of 200,000 tonnes per year, through a plant which will have a furnace reaching a very high temperature of 1,000°C for combustion treatment. And this will be affecting the largest aquifer in Europe.
The Silva will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and will have a considerable impact. One of the most immediate impacts that can easily be assessed concerns the concentration of PM0.5. And indeed, our area is already third in the European classification in terms of pollution. There's also a problem with noise pollution. Sylvia confirms that they will not be able to respect the maximum limits at night, and there is also a radioactive risk because the arrival of radioactive material cannot be ruled out.
There's also a biological risk. The plant is near SCI area sites, sites of community interest. And the measures don't seem to be enough to actually protect the flora, fauna, and migratory birds. In particular, for Directive 92/43, which is the Habitat Directive. The most devastating risk is the hydrogeological risk, and it is very difficult to assess the repercussions of this.
In our area, they're still not applying the rules of the European Directive 118/2006. In the Veneto area, 20 years later, we still haven't had official recognition of this. In conclusion, members of the petitions committee, we have come here today to ask for your concern and attention to the various environmental problems that have arisen. In Italy, unfortunately, the European directives do not seem to be heeded. So, we would like to ask for your participation in protecting this part of Northeastern Europe, as well as the health of the inhabitants, who have to protect their own area.
We would like, therefore, the petition to remain open and for it to be examined under the relevant context here in the European Parliament. We would like to invite the European Commission to get in contact with the province of Vicenza. The province is responsible for this. In order to see that the European regulations are respected, to look at the relevant rules, and also the precautionary principle, which has to be respected, is again being ignored. We have to protect our environmental resources, including our drinking water.
So, we would be very grateful to you if you help protect this, also for future generations. Thank you.
Speaker 51
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committee. And I'd also, of course, like to thank the signatories of the petition who have come here today on behalf of Tutel Llomo Las Salute. Thank you very much for directing the attention of the commission to this project, Silva SRL. It has implications for human health, and we very much agree with the concerns of Tutel Llomo.
But we'd like to direct your attention, in particular, to the local authorities and the national local authorities regarding their obligations. They have obligations deriving from the rules of the European Union. First of all, the Waste Framework Directive sets out a classification of waste. Article 4, Paragraph 2 sets out that the member states should adopt measures to encourage the best management of them. The management of this project.
Speaker 52
The national authorities must actually respect the classification in the Framework Directive. The second point that I would like to mention is the life directive. According to our estimation, the project would come under Annex 1 of that directive, under waste processing and chemical processing. Now, the processes in Annex One must be submitted to an assessment procedure: an impact assessment. And we believe, since the committee has actually told us this, and we thank them for that, that there is one of these processes ongoing.
Speaker 53
So, the competent authorities are indeed looking into how to implement the impact assessment. In addition to that, if we look at the publicly available data, we see that the authorities of this basin are investigating it. The local authorities have actually suspended the project for the moment. It's not continuing. We also see that the Life Directive recognizes rights of participation on the part of the citizens and the NGOs with respect to the Aarhus Convention.
Speaker 52
Therefore, we would ask the signatories to address that authority regarding the alternatives they are suggesting for the project. So we're inviting the signatories to practice their rights, the rights they have, rights of participation within the administrative practices that are actually ongoing at the moment. And we ask them to exercise their right of access to justice, as set out in the Habitat and Life Directives, because the Habitat Directive is also relevant here. Why? Well, as the signatories have reminded us, the project could have an impact on Natura 2000, which is protected under the Habitat Directive.
Speaker 51
So, we have other, further obligations on the competent authorities. They have the obligation to look at the effect of these projects on the various species covered by the Habitat Directive. The study of the impact, as it is done in Italy, involves a screening. I'm not sure if we can get further information on that from the committee or from the signatories. I don't know what the outcome of that has been.
Speaker 52
Therefore, if we look at the Habitat directive, as a consequence of that, we, of course, invite the member state in question to respect their obligations on aquifers, on water resources, on the area, and all the nature repercussions that exist, as well as the influence which this has on the protected species. And obviously, we also invite the committee, the signatories, to exercise their rights to access justice. Now, should they still be dissatisfied with the result of the various processes which I have described? In any case, we remain at their disposal for any further developments in the issue. But we have said it's ongoing, and we are available should there be any other points arising on this project.
Thank you.
Speaker 42
It would seem that this petition is in Italian. I will adapt to that and speak in Italian. First of all, I would like to thank the representatives of Tutel Yamo Lasallute because it is very important that in Europe, we have these bodies which represent the causes that are dear to citizens. And it seems to me that there are two important points arising for the European Commission. I think we've had a clear account of the state of play of the petition.
They have underscored that there are ongoing procedures. There's an authorization that has to be examined. That's something important. But I think, as the EPP group, we would like to see the Commission's written reply. And we would like to underscore two very important principles.
First of all, as the signatories or petitioners have said, we have to deal here with the precautionary principle. Because here, we have a situation which is very common. We have these environmental projects where it is not very clear whether the precautionary principle has been respected. Perhaps the commission could therefore tell us a bit more about that and be more substantive about how the project can be connected to the precautionary principle. And we always talk about these impact assessments.
I get the impression that if we look at the situation in Malta, for example, where we have a project for an incinerator ongoing. The authorities are making a call for proposals. But then the impact assessments take place rather late, too late for the authority to abandon the project because of the social or environmental impact. So, we would like to see the written contribution of the commission, and we'd like this petition to remain open.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Gomez.
Thank you.
Speaker 55
The petition raises some serious concerns relating to the installation of a waste treatment facility in Veneto, particularly risks for underwater resources and concerns for health. And there is also a risk of contaminating aquifers in vulnerable areas. These are water sources that provide water to thousands of people, so we would like to share their concerns as part of the SND group. The group project includes the treatment of highly toxic waste, and there are still doubts about the adequacy of the waste treatment facility. And so, it means we need to pay specific attention to this petition.
Speaker 56
The possible lack of proper assessments and documents merits the attention of the European Union. There needs to be rigorous documentation, effective public awards, and actions based on scientific evidence. This province is already facing significant challenges when it comes to the atmosphere and pollution. Now, we do need cumulative impact assessments. So we, in the Socialist group, would like to ask the European Commission to assess the compatibility of this project with the Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, and the Water and Air Quality Directive.
Speaker 59
So there needs to be an environmental impact assessment. We would ask competent authorities to make sure that any authorization includes an environmental impact assessment, including when it comes to the aquifers. We would ask the ENVY committee to also be involved, and we would ask for the petition to be open until we have the commission's response.
Speaker 54
Thank you very much, Chair. It's a great pleasure to discuss this petition with you, and I will continue in Italian.
Speaker 57
I would like to thank the petitioners for having introduced this petition and Doctor Pagano from DGNV for having actually set out a few points that we can reflect on, and I'd like to take them up. Number one, this project, presented by the signatories, is about a risk for 300,000 people who are served by an aqueduct that gets water downstream. And so, that's very important for those living there and around there. This is an area where one drop of water falls, and it goes into the groundwater. It goes into the water table.
Speaker 58
So, we have to have a protection strategy. And if this doesn't work for any reason, then the water table will be compromised. And this is one of the most important water tables, or aquifers, in Europe. And we also have the problem of PFAS contamination. And Veneto and the local authorities must authorize Mitemi, the company that is currently addressing the complaints of the local people.
And they are agreeing that there has been contamination in the past and more recently due to this plant. The aquifer is contaminated and has been contaminated by PFAS. And this is very important, obviously, from the health point of view. So what I would like to say is that we are talking about needing to protect the only section of the water table which is still not completely contaminated. So.
Speaker 57
The water table is exposed. And if we authorize a plant that is not healthy, we are affecting more than 300,000 people who are going to be contaminated and subject to contamination from the landfill as well. So, it's a complicated picture. There is an ongoing impact assessment. However, we know that the impact assessment, if it's carried out without there being a definition of the aquifer area in the local area, then the impact assessment is defective, and there is no
Response.
Speaker 57
So we can't say to them, "Please go to the authorities of the province of Vicenza." We can't ask them to do that because the situation continues, despite the fact that representations have already been made. The local authorities are giving their opinion, but nevertheless, I still feel that we have a structural problem in Italy. Italy is already the subject of infringement procedures in terms of Natura 2000 protection. It's not the first time that projects of this kind are approved despite actions being taken to protect European regulations.
We cannot allow a situation in which such a delicate, such a sensitive area is compromised here because we're waiting on the results of evaluations and assessments. The plant has to guarantee its prevention measures because, as I said before, if prevention measures are not taken, then this will affect the water table for hundreds of years. Therefore, I believe that it is opportune to keep this petition open, and I thank the colleagues for their support. I thank them very warmly, and I ask the commission to assess the situation in such a way that it helps the municipality in question in Vicenza, and that we can look into the issue of protecting this region, which has been having these problems for many years now. So that, at least at the European level, we can safeguard the area and not simply be content with saying that everything is alright vis-à-vis Natura 2000.
No. We also have to deal with the greater risk. It's true that citizens' committees have a certain amount of power. They can express the risks, but they're also faced with economic interests and the management of these landfills, which are political in nature. So there isn't such an efficient tool of protection, if you like, for the citizens.
The defect is on the part of the authorities in terms of a lack of protection, not on the part of the citizens. So, obviously, we have to have justice through the traditional channels, but we also want the authorities in Europe to face their responsibilities and ensure that their rules are being respected, and not simply left to the legal process, which, in particular in Italy, is very long. The defense of public health is extremely important. Tumors, cancer, and various pathologies are the result of all this, and that cannot be underestimated. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 3
Let me just add that we have a lot of petitions and limited time for the availability of interpreters. So please stick to the time limit, as I will be very strict.
Speaker 49
Thank you very much. Well, for the technical issues, I can hand over to the experts at the commission. They will be responsible for expressing an opinion. We, for example, are not being protected by our local authorities because there is a different interpretation of the European legislation. But let me use the time available to me to thank you.
Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Christina Guarda, for the attention that you have paid to our cause and for wanting to really understand this problem in our area, the pollution which exists, and the loss of the aquifer. There's been too much; there's too little attention paid. We have not been listened to. We haven't received the documents.
So, colleagues of the European Parliament, members of the Petitions Committee, we would like to remind you of an important European founder who used to be here in this building. We hope that although the future is difficult and not secure, we have to pursue it faithfully. Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Yes, please.
Speaker 54
I only want to ask Yuta and the colleagues if it's possible to send the letter to the Vicenza province, letting them know that we are dealing with this petition and asking them, as requested by the petitioner, to take care also of this point.
Related.
To the petition. On behalf of the petty committee?
Fine.
Speaker 3
Yes. The petition remains open, and we will ask for a written update from the European Commission. Thank you very much for presenting this petition. And let's move on to item 14, petition 1811/2025 by a Spanish citizen on the construction of a waste facility near Escol and its environmental impact in Madrid. The petitioner is in the meeting room.
Where are you? Here. Okay. The floor is yours.
Speaker 62
Ladies and gentlemen, members of the petty committee, MEPs, Albie Brief, chair. We firmly believe that the Council of Madrid is violating European directives related to the environment and the protection of children. Now, just imagine for a few moments a huge industrial site of more than 10,000 square meters with 84 huge trucks, waste compactors, a mechanical workshop, and noise and fine particles being emitted at all times of the day. Only 60 meters from two or three schools and a nursery where more than 4,000 children are playing and learning. Next slide, please.
Speaker 61
So, our question is: is this the Europe that we want for 2026? Does this not go against the principle of precaution, the compulsory environmental assessments, and the essential interests of children, which we set out in our Charter of Fundamental Rights? So, on behalf of thousands of neighbors and parents of the German School in Madrid, we ask for your support. This is not just a local neighborhood issue. This is an issue linked to the protection of the most vulnerable populations.
Speaker 63
Next slide, please. Now, let me just show you a plan of the site. So, this is in Monte Carmelo, 150 meters from the regional park of the Manzanares Basin, which is a UNESCO site. This area is surrounded by the German School of Madrid and two other schools. So, from the playgrounds and the school fields, you can hear the children laughing and playing during their break.
Speaker 61
Next slide, please. So here is more detail about the distance of the industrial facility from the schools. Soon, we will have machine noises, diesel smells, and emissions of fine particulate matter. Now, the German School of Madrid has already won in the Spanish courts. In the sentence 118-20-25 of the ruling, the municipal authorizations were nulled because there was a lack of the environmental impact assessment in line with directive 2011-92.
Next slide, please. Now imagine how the parents and neighbors felt when there were huge amounts of machinery, and they tore down the forest area. So, we can't see these trees anymore. The green areas are gone. This is where they would play, have their snacks, and spend time in nature.
Next slide, please. So now, on the next slide, you can see what has happened. Next slide, please. So, this is the current situation. This area of life has now become sterile.
Trees have been cut down. Fauna has been displaced, and ecosystems have been destroyed. And now we're looking to see if this is a scorched earth strategy by the council to make this decision irreversible. So why is there such urgency to destruct when there are viable alternatives? Next slide, please.
Again, here you can see the area before and after, as well as the bird nests and the fauna that have been displaced. Next slide, please. Now, the risks are very well documented. Psychological assessment endorsed by 31 professionals says that there is a high risk of anxiety disorders and depressive disorders as a result of all this noise. The young people are still developing, and they're hyper vulnerable to fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, according to the European Environmental Agency.
Next slide, please. This goes against the air quality directive in sensitive areas. The noise directive, which safeguards schools, and Articles 24 and 37 of the Fundamental Rights Charter, require a healthy environment for children. Isn't there a better place to put this industrial site that does not jeopardize the lives of 4,000 children? And so, we are raising our voices.
300, 3,000, and 500 signatures, as well as protests, and we've also sent in 14,000 signatures to the council. We asked in February 2026. I'm almost finished. So we are asking you to keep this petition open, to push for a full investigation, and to remove this to an appropriate industrial area. The environmental damage will be irreversible if we don't take action, and there is also a risk for children, but we still have time to take action.
We would like to ask you to come and visit. You can come and see the sites with your own eyes, and you'll see the destruction of the only green space and how it has affected the schools. Thank you very much for hearing us, and for giving us a voice and a future.
Envy. Yes, please.
Speaker 65
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the petitioner for the additional information they have provided today. In European Union legislation, there are a number of provisions that are relevant to the petitioner's case. I wanted to mention also the Waste Framework Directive, which was amended in 2018, because this directive requires that anyone who carries out waste treatment obtains a permit from the competent authority.
Speaker 66
This permit shall contain certain information, which includes, first of all, the types and quantities of waste that may be treated, the technical and all other requirements relevant to the site itself, and also safety and precautionary measures that need to be taken in view of the specific situation on the site. And finally, the permit must also include the operations of control and monitoring that need to be carried out in relation to emissions and pollution from the site. When the competent authority considers that the treatment methods are unacceptable from the point of view of environmental protection, it must refuse to issue this permit. It is not clear from the petition if such a permit has been requested or granted. But I would also like to draw attention to another important rule in the Waste Framework Directive, which requires that the protection of human health and the environment is ensured when waste management is carried out.
Speaker 65
Specifically, member states shall take all the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without risks to water, air, soil, plants, and animals, and without causing nuisances through noise or odors, and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. And the competent authorities must carry out periodic inspections of the waste treatment operations concerned. We also have the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive that was referred to by the petitioners. And, under this, the project in question, which is subject to the petition, falls under the scope of this directive. And the consultations have to be made with the public, the local and regional authorities, and also other authorities that are likely to be concerned by their specific responsibilities in terms of environmental protection.
The decision for development consent should duly take into account the outcomes of the consultations and the information provided. So compliance with these national laws and with these European Union laws must lie primarily with the national authorities, including judicial ones. These authorities are better placed to assess the individual circumstances and the situations on the site, for example, where the waste is deposited, and the emissions and pollution caused. And then the authorities shall intervene as necessary. And I would also address the issues concerning fundamental rights and the rights of children as referred to by the petitioners.
Indeed, there is Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which requires public and private institutions to take the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in all actions relating to children and to consider children's views. This is particularly relevant in relation to educational settings and the areas around them, where involving children in decision-making contributes to the quality of the service they receive. Also, there is the EU strategy on the rights of the child, adopted on 03/24/2021, which recalls the right of the child to live on a clean and healthy planet, as recognized by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all EU member states. And finally, I would also like to mention the Commission's recommendation on integrated child protection systems. This underlines a strong need to protect children from environmental hazards that have life consequences and encourages member states to include a child-protective and child-sensitive approach in their climate change adaptation and mitigation plans, including the involvement of children in conversations related to the environment.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 41
Thank you, Chair. I will intervene in my mother tongue, the Maltese language.
Speaker 42
We are talking; I'm speaking on behalf of my colleagues and my political group. Obviously, I would like to first of all congratulate the petitioners. I would like to thank them for coming here and having the courage to share their experiences and voice their concerns. We are interested, and we want to see that all the rules, even those mentioned by the commission, are implemented and put into practice around Europe. However, from the information that I collected to speak here in this committee, it appears that this project is not a landfill.
It is not an industrial facility. It's not an incinerator. So, it's not waste treatment. It is described as an essential municipal infrastructure, a local facility that is intended as offices, staff changing rooms, storage areas, and parking. There's a marina.
There is, like, space for trucks to park. And, therefore, it doesn't appear, but I am not in a position to judge. The competent authorities should judge at the national level. It's good to have scrutiny at a European level, but at a first evaluation, they don't appear to be activities that fall under this type of scrutiny. It is therefore very important to emphasize that a cleaning depot, as in this case, is crucial for the locality and for the community.
And in this particular case, there was an opinion from the ombudsman that confirmed this. Therefore, in view of all this, we believe that this petition should be closed.
Speaker 67
J'allais. Don't worry. It's difficult to pronounce. I will speak Spanish.
My thanks to Raul for representing the parents from the German School of Madrid and the thousands of neighbors who are moving to support this case as well. As Raul has explained, this is not of minor importance. This is a facility of 10,000 square meters, functioning 24/7, with trucks coming in and out. We looked at the videos before. We saw how much noise there is in the photos, and this is only 50 meters away from a school and a nursery.
And no father would ever want their children to have to suffer from the health, noise, environmental, etc., impacts. They're right next to them. So, 400 neighbors have gotten together in this association. Many other associations have also joined their voices. With their right to participation, they have offered other viable solutions two kilometers away, and they have gone to the courts.
And the Council of Madrid must take into account that they need to carry out environmental tests and a picnic area that is in keeping with the project, which is not just an auxiliary cleaning spot as has been claimed by some people, but rather an industrial waste facility in Madrid. The Madrid Council has not given the report that the courts asked for. They even began the work without those reports being given. We are very concerned about the fact that, despite this ruling, the work is being undertaken and they are not fulfilling the European directives related to the assessment of the implications of certain public and private projects on the environment, as mentioned by our expert from the commission. So, in the Socialist group, we would like to recognize the work that you are doing and reiterate our support to you.
We've been in permanent contact with some government authorities in Madrid to follow this up and remind you that we are here on your side. A week ago, we asked for information so that members of that group and the members of the association could come together to meet with the competent authorities as well as neighbors. And so, we have seen that there have been other priorities at the moment, but later on, we will be presenting this to you. And I would like to make a call that this goes beyond any party-based interest, and that we all look for the benefit of what we can do to benefit the families. Thank you very much.
Speaker 68
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Well, This is quite interesting, the way that you've all been able to applaud what's been said. Thank you very much to the petitioner for coming to Brussels. There is something that happened before all of this. There was a ruling by the administrative court, a legal ruling in Spain, that said this project was to be cleared, null and void, and that ruling was there.
And yet, nevertheless, the Madrid municipal council is continuing with these works. So, to me, I think they are quite clear. We have to, you've seen the pictures. As if they were actually looking for the very worst spot to carry out this facility, right next to a natural park on one side, and on the other side, three colleges and a nursery. It's as if they have done it on purpose.
So, I don't want to be someone who falls into believing in conspiracy theories, but imagine that what they're doing here, this huge facility, is not only illegal, but it's also creating a disturbance to the daily life of the children. There is heavy machinery, noise, dust, and destruction of the environment. You've seen it all in the pictures: 14,000 signatures sent to the municipality, not to ask for something, but rather to demand that they simply respect the legal ruling. There are thousands of signatures supporting that petition. There have been protests.
In the past, there used to be a current of thought in administrative law that was called municipal romanticism. So, this is a very beautiful idea that says that municipalities are the best level of government because they are the closest to those who are being administered. But if you knew who the mayor of Madrid was, a gentleman from the Popular Party, they never would. If they'd known who that was, they never would have talked about this idea of municipal romanticism. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 71
We would like to express our full support to the families, neighbors, and children, boys and girls, of the Monte Carmelo neighborhood in Madrid. First of all, we defend the rights of children. And secondly, because we want a Madrid that is clean and healthy, one in which people can live, not a Madrid for investment funds. And above all, because children have the right to learn and study without noise, with guarantees. The previous person said no.
It doesn't matter because this is going to be a place where they are merely parking trucks. Sorry. No. The children have to cross the highway. There's no reason why they should be trying to avoid trucks.
As Ben said here, there are other places in that very neighborhood that are much more appropriate for setting up this kind of facility, not right in the middle of schools and educational centers, or places taking care of or offering services to neighbors and children. We would also like to support this petition because we can't allow this large-scale waste facility plant, more than 10,000 square meters huge, to be in a place that so directly impacts the environment, violating all rules or regulations related to the protection of the environment where we're trying to preserve the quality and health of the people that live there, be it Monte Carmelo or me, or be it any other neighborhood in Brussels or any city, any country in the European Union. For this reason, and also because we need to respect the rulings that have already been passed down, we ask for this petition to remain open, and we invite a fact-finding mission to be sent as well to see right there together with the actors here. Take a look at this environmental attack, which is having such an incredible impact on the ability of the neighbors of that area, Monte Carmela, to live together.
Speaker 74
Thank you very much. I'd just like to thank the previous speakers. I'm glad that despite political parties, we can agree on some things. Although one colleague was not able to understand what's really happening, I'd suggest that they look again at what's really happening to these children. I mean, it's impossible to concentrate when you've got this kind of noise happening.
Speaker 75
Now I would also ask the council of Madrid to meet. I mean, they haven't been able to listen to what the neighbors are saying, so we would ask for that to happen. And if I'm not mistaken, the petitioners have said that this new site is 1.5 kilometers away, in an area where it would be perfectly appropriate. So, the fact that there was a ruling against that and generalized agreement with all of the neighborhoods, and given all of the information that the petitioners have given us, I can only agree with all of the other Spanish colleagues, apart from one of them unfortunately, and ask for this petition to remain open. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Thank you very much for all your support. Apologies to the member of the EPP. I would ask them to look again at the project, which has been approved by the council. Now, these are industrial sites: 10,000 square meters, 84 heavyweight vehicles, a mechanical workshop, and waste treatment, some of which is toxic waste. So, please, I would be really happy to show you this so that you can understand what's happening.
Speaker 61
This is not something of minor significance. As we've said, this is about protecting children, and we would encourage you to come on a fact-finding visit on the mission. And yes, the last speaker said there is another site. But we don't know why they decided on this location because there was an environmental impact assessment that was lacking. Now, if they had looked at the alternative, this would have been endorsed by all of the members of the neighbors' association.
So, the only one who is against it is the People's Party in Madrid. So please have a look at the sites yourself. Please look at the data that the council has provided. Thank you very much, everyone.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
You. The petition remains open, and we will request a written reply from the European Commission regarding future actions. Thank you. Item 15, petition 0577/2021 by Hema Aragones Amor from Spain on behalf of the Park Association on Barcelona's low emissions zone, and petition 1033/2021 by Abelardo Montero from Spain on the new Metropolitan Urban Mobility Plan 2019-2024 for Barcelona. The petitioner for petition 0570Seventwo21 is connected remotely.
I would like to give the floor to the petitioner for no more than 5 minutes.
Speaker 77
Madam Chair, honorable members of the European Parliament, I appear before you today not merely as a jurist but as a defender of the rule of law within the European Union. Let us begin with clarity. Directive 2008/50/EC obliged member states to reduce air pollution effectively. That obligation is unquestionable. It is not optional.
Speaker 76
It's a legal duty and a public health imperative. But equally unquestionable is this: European Union law does not mandate blanket vehicle bans. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in case C-444/13, required effective air quality plans. It did not impose automatic prohibitions on entire vehicle categories.
It did not authorize indiscriminate exclusion, and it certainly did not suspend the principle of proportionality. Article 5.4 of the Treaty of the European Union remains fully applicable. Energy public measures must satisfy three cumulative conditions. It must be suitable. It must be necessary, and it must be proportionate in the strict sense.
Where less restrictive measures exist, authorities are legally obliged to choose them. This is not political rhetoric. This is settled jurisprudence. Generalized advance of vehicles holding environmental level V faces these legal tests when effective alternatives remain available. Alternatives include real emission testing, mandatory catalytic efficiency controls, targeted urban traffic management, and structural support for gradual fleet renewal.
Proportionality is not a decorative principle. It's a constitutional guarantee. Honorable members, we must also confront the social reality. Millions of European citizens, workers, self-employed professionals, and families rely on vehicles that remain technically compliant, have passed inspections, and are lawful. A blanket provision does not distinguish between high emitters and compliant vehicles.
It does not assess individual circumstances. It does not weigh economic capacity. It simply excludes an exclusion when structurally linked to income level, risking violation of the principles of equality and nondiscrimination inscribed in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Environmental protection cannot become a mechanism of socio-economic segregation. Access to employment, freedom of movement, and the right to property are not secondary values.
They are the fundamental elements of the European legal order, a measure that disproportionately burdens middle- and lower-income households without demonstrating that no less restrictive alternative exists raises serious legal concerns. This is not a denial of the environmental urgency. On the contrary, effective environmental policy must be legally robust, socially sustainable, and technically sound. Otherwise, it will collapse under the judicial scrutiny of social resistance. International experience confirms that no two reductions can be achieved without categorical bans.
Strict inspection regimes, technological upgrades, industrial and port emission regulations, progressive electrification supported by real public investments, environmental effectiveness, and social fairness are not mutually exclusive. They are mutually reinforcing. Honorable members, the question before us is not whether we must reduce pollution. The question is whether we do so in infidelity to European law. The European Union is founded on proportionality, equality, and legal certainty.
If we abandon those principles in the name of urgency, we undermine the very legitimacy of environmental policy. The continued circulation of vehicles holding environmental level V, subject to effective inspection and complementary measures, is not contrary to EU law. What is contrary to EU law is the adoption of measures that exceed what is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. The European Parliament has institutional authority and the constitutional responsibility to ensure that environmental action remains correct in legality. I respectfully urge this committee to reject the generalized advance of Level B vehicles, not because environmental protection is optional, but because the rule of law is not negotiable.
Cleaner and fundamental rights must coexist. That is the European way. Thank you.
Speaker 3
DG, and we know it is a two-person. First, fourth minutes, second to fourth.
Speaker 78
Thank you very much. First of all, if you'll allow me, once I finish my presentation on my observations from DG Envy on what's been set out by the petitioner, I'll give the floor to my colleague from DG Move so that they can complete with comments of their own. So first of all, I'd like to thank the petitioner for exposing their facts and sharing their concerns relating to the application of union law in this case. I'd like to give you a little bit of context about the situation with these low emission zones, in this case, the city of Barcelona. As the petitioner has said, the relevant directive wants to protect human and environmental health, so we set out some limit values for polluting substances.
And to do that, there needs to be a reduction in the concentration of these substances in the atmosphere. Now, to reduce these limit values, countries have to adopt action plans and a series of measures with the goal of making sure that the time spent exceeding this measure is as brief as possible. For nitrogen dioxide, the limit values in the directive entered into force on 01/01/2010. And in 2015, the Commission, as a guardian of the treaties, decided to start infringement proceedings against some countries, including Spain, which had not met the limit values for nitrogen dioxide and therefore had not adopted the necessary action plans to reduce the concentrations of these polluting substances in the atmosphere. After having a dialogue with the member state over several years, the Commission decided to bring the issue to the Court of Justice, which issued a ruling in December 2022, saying that there was noncompliance from Spain given the obligations under the directive on air quality.
For that reason, Spain then had to respect this sentence, this ruling, and adopt action plans for all of the areas where the air quality had figures going above what was stipulated. So that was Barcelona, Madrid, and L'Obriga. Now, the Court of Justice also established some clear case law, which explained which measures needed to be implemented within the action plans by member states to reduce pollution in the air, particularly for air quality. So, one of the priorities was the effectiveness of the measures on cost-based measures and economic issues because the priority is environmental and human health. That doesn't mean that those measures are no longer proportionate, but one limit here is the discretion of member states, which is permitted to make sure that they're choosing the right measures to ensure that the period of time spent above this limit value is as brief as possible.
The Court of Justice also left the proportionality of these measures to the national authorities, who are the ones checking those measures to ensure they are compliant. Now, the current situation shows that the measures adopted by Spain to meet this ruling and the implementation of these low emission zones have been effective in reaching the goal to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Justice, because we have now had several years where the limit values for nitrogen dioxide have been respected. Now, in line with the information that is publicly available, the information that we have is about the low emissions zone. Well, this went through courts, but it was finally avoided by the Supreme Court ruling in December 2023. And after that, a new ordinance was adopted, which looks at the socioeconomic impacts and supports the new measures with more robust technical assessments to make sure that these measures are proportional.
And then, in 2023, there was a new ordinance establishing new low emission zones in Barcelona, with the courts considering it to be appropriate, which is in line with the principle of proportionality. Now, as we've said previously, I will give the floor to my colleague from DG Move to complete this. Thank you.
Speaker 79
Thank you very much to my colleagues from DGN. I also thank the chair and the honorable members for having us here. Thank you also to the petitioner for once again reminding us of what we are talking about right now. I completely agree with DGN environments, and the judicial background of the case, I think, was very well brought forward here. I also agree with the petitioner regarding the importance of upholding the principles of proportionality in European laws.
I would first like to remind everybody that low emission zones remain a very popular policy in European cities. Our best research done by Digimove in 2026 indicates that we have about 500 low emission zones in European cities, and 30 of those 50 are actually zero emission zones. So the way that the directive 2000, the air quality directive, is being implemented shows that this way is quite popular and that it works. I would also like to come back to what the colleague was talking about in terms of measures that were utilized to make sure that the low emissions are proportional and that they don't harm the low-income residents. There has been a list of actions that were included to flank this measure of low emission zones, such as the TiVerda metropolitan green card, which provided free unlimited public transport for the entire metropolitan area of Barcelona, and eligible residents needed to deregister a vehicle without an environmental lane.
So this is just one of many schemes that the city of Barcelona has introduced in order to make this transition gradual. Right? When we are talking about proportionality, we mean that things have to be included step by step, not overnight, completely reviewing the effects and, of course, not leaving anybody behind. Scrapping incentives, special permits, and more returns for low-income individuals, to our knowledge, have been implemented. Barcelona also continues to expand its public transport network and support. With the National Recovery and Resilience Plans, they have invested a lot into their fleet of electric vehicles, electric buses, trams, public transportation generally, and cycling networks.
So, there have also been discounts in Barcelona that are targeted towards the elderly, low-income individuals, big families, and students. So all of this together makes it so that these measures were, in fact, targeted, proportional, not overnight, not excessive, and not a burden to the citizens. Tackling emission pollution in cities is usually done by either addressing the pollution coming from vehicles or district heating systems. In a city like Barcelona, it is logical, and if not apt under the directive, to focus more on the road emissions, seeing as this receding is a bit more secondary in a pleasant climate such as Barcelona. So, in conclusion, Digimu very much echoes the sentiment and the conclusions brought forth by our colleagues from the environment.
And we do not find that there has been any transgression from you alone. And thank you very much.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the petitioners for submitting this petition to our committee. It's very important to have clean air and to also pay attention to climate change. Therefore, it is very important to reach the targets and to look at how they are implemented.
What's been happening in Barcelona with the project and the clean air zones, and their implementation, is something that is very important for the citizens. But it also creates social uncertainty. And for that reason, I'd like this petition to remain open.
One minute. Two minutes.
One minute. Yes. Don't worry.
Speaker 55
So first of all, the first thing we'd like to point out is that we've talked about a metropolitan plan, which is no longer in force. It's an urban mobility plan for Barcelona, which will end in 2024. Today, there's a different one: the one from 2025 to 2030. So it makes it a bit difficult for us to really understand the meaning of what we are actually debating here. Obviously, our good disrespect to the petitioner, but that plan is over and finished.
Nevertheless, what I would like to say is that the regulation of the low emission zones is established by municipal orders, which are very much in keeping with Spanish-wide and European regulations. And the issue about the economic impacts or potential harm: areas with transitory and exceptional periods, as well as support programs, have been implemented for certain groups to facilitate their progressive adaptation to the plan. So, in those lines as well, in our opinion, everything is very much in keeping with European legislation; therefore, the petition should be closed. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 68
Thank you very much. I'll try to focus everything down in just one minute, but I would say that I agree not with the reasons given, but perhaps with the objective. But we say that when we're talking, we hear that there's an environmental cause, but it's something quite simplistic. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from, for example, combustion engine vehicles, etc., as if it weren't those very same cars just taking another route, moving around and generating the same greenhouse gases, which might actually be a worse result than what you were trying to do. So it is, we can see the 2030 agenda as well, which has actually harmed our industry so much, as we've seen very much in the different projects, for example, that are no longer being carried out in Barcelona.
Some 35% of the automobile park of the car parks have been left out, and I think that there's classism behind this more than a desire to protect the environment. Thank you.
Speaker 82
In short, the partial prohibition due to pollution has been in effect since 01/01/2026, and the permanent prohibition is scheduled for January 1.
Madam Patricio, one minute for you.
Speaker 76
Yes. Ensure the partial prohibition of the pollution has been in effect since 01/01/1926, and the permanent prohibition is scheduled for 01/01/1928. Okay? So, it's not something that is closed. It is open and ready to be enforced, and this is why we are here.
We have been asking for a petition since 2021. So, we arrived today, but it is not finished. It's not close. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. The petition remains open, and we will be waiting for a written reply from the European Commission. And item 16, petition 0288/2022 by a Cypriot citizen on the alleged violations of EU environmental legislation in the Akamas Peninsula in Cyprus, and another petition, 0450/2022 by a Cypriot citizen on behalf of Terra Cypriot, the Cyprus Conservation Foundation, on the development projects on the Akamas Peninsula in Cyprus. Both petitioners are connected remotely. If that is correct, I would like to give them the floor.
Yes. Hello?
Thank you.
Speaker 86
Thank you for once again giving us the opportunity to take the floor and draw attention to ACAMAS. Our petition was submitted back in March 2022. It has been 4 years. It is titled "Violations of EU Legislation and Fundamental Rights Threatened the Unique Agamas Peninsula in the Republic of Cyprus." The struggle to protect this unique peninsula has been ongoing for decades.
Speaker 84
And in recent years, we have witnessed several worrying developments. Next slide. Our petition focused on four areas: environment, institutions, fundamental rights, and corruption. Next slide. Aqamas Peninsula is located on the west of Cyprus and is very rich in terrestrial and marine biodiversity.
Speaker 85
Sites in Aqamas have been designated as special protection areas under the Birds Directive and/or as sites of community importance under the Habitats Directive. However, the sites are considerably fragmented, and they face significant pressures and threats since no effective, legally binding measures are yet in place to protect them. Next slide. Species of European importance, such as the critically endangered Mediterranean monk seal and the Egyptian fruit bat, form colonies on Agamas. The green turtle and loggerhead turtle nest on its shores, and the Bonnelli's eagle breeds on the mountainous parts of the peninsula.
Next slide. Throughout the years, the Republic of Cyprus has not been enforcing EU and national legislation, and we have therefore identified multiple unauthorized or illegal activities and interventions, such as illegal beach bars, unauthorized private parties with loud music, illegal expansion of quarry zones, illegal roadworks, and illegal earthworks. All this has adverse and often irreversible effects on precious natural habitats protected under EU law. Cyp, next slide. Cyprus has several infringement cases open with the European Commission in the policy area of environment, and at least three of them are, in fact, directly related to the Agama Peninsula and Natura 2000 sites in general.
Next slide. Unfortunately, the failure to implement the Aarhus Convention is eroding democratic processes and harming natural habitats as a direct consequence. Civil society continues to face systematic barriers to information, participation in decision-making, and access to national justice. Next slide. The justice system in the Republic of Cyprus suffers from lengthy court proceedings and delays.
It is therefore nearly impossible to seek and obtain timely justice in cases concerning the environment, and this has been acknowledged by the EU. The state consistently does not enforce existing legislation by imposing penalties or prosecuting offenders and did not execute the orders that were issued in some rare cases. Ultimately, the state does not protect the citizens' legitimate expectations of law enforcement. Next slide. In 2025, the Auditor General of the Republic of Cyprus published two reports related to AGAMAS.
The first one was an audit of construction contracts for the Agamas National Forest Park, which, among other things, scrutinized the spending of EU funds. The second one was an audit of the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Environment, and how it operates in general. Both reports revealed a concerning picture of widespread environmental violations and administrative failures at the Department of Forestry, on one hand, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development, and Environment, on the other hand. The reports also recommended investigating alleged corruption. On the slide, you can see quotes from the reports: mismanagement, omissions, unjustifiable delays, and state reluctance to adopt immediate and remedial measures where violations and illegalities are identified.
Next slide. We believe that at least three fundamental rights included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are being violated in the case of Agamas, namely the right to environmental protection, the right to property, and the right to good administration. Next slide. Following the work on this matter by the Committee on Petitions on 13 March 2024, the European Commission decided to bring the Republic of Cyprus before the Court of Justice of the European Union, acknowledging the Cypriot authorities' failure to comply with EU law. Two years later, the European Commission did not start the related legal proceedings.
As active citizens and NGO representatives working on the ground to protect natural ecosystems, we consider all the serious violations of EU law, which remain unaddressed. We make a plea to the European institutions to help us defend the unique area of Agamas in full compliance with the...
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, please.
Speaker 1
Alright. Dear members of the Parliament and the committee, thank you for giving us once more the opportunity to present our petitions for Agamas. Next slide, please. This small and pristine area, which lies inside Tunadura, hosts 2,000 sites, SACs, and SPAs, Hirsonesos Agama, and around 50% of the island's biodiversity of habitats and species of flora and fauna of community importance listed in the annexes of the habitats directive, as well as every fauna of community interest listed in Annex I of the birds directive. Next slide, please.
According to the EU Commission, our two petitions are an illustration of the strategic issues on which the commission can and is focusing. Next slide, please. Our two petitions are directly related to an open case filed by the Standing Committee of the Berne Convention regarding the conservation of the Agamas Peninsula and the sea turtle nesting beaches of Grisoku Bay. They are also directly related to three active infringement procedures, which I'll explain in a minute. Next slide, please.
The first ongoing infringement procedure is the insufficient designation of Nadura 2000 network. It's a case since 2018, and it refers to the systemic and incorrect application of Articles 41 and 42 of the Habitats Directive and Birds Directive, accordingly. The European Commission sent a reasoned opinion in October 2020. Major gaps remain regarding the adequate representativity of several types of habitats and species of cypress in Cyprus, some of which are found in Agamas. Next slide, please.
The second ongoing infringement procedure is for the lack of conservation objectives and management measures. This case has been open since 2021. It's about the systemic bad and incorrect application of Articles 4.4, 6.1, and 6.2 of the Habitats Directive, as well as Articles 4.1 and 4.4 of the Birds Directive in Cyprus. The European Commission decided in March 2024 to proceed with the referral of the case to the European Court of Justice. Both SACs and SPAs are not adequately protected in Cyprus, while legally binding and site-specific conservation objectives and management measures have not yet been established for most of the Natura 2,000 sites in Cyprus, including Khersonisos of Agamas.
Next slide, please. The third ongoing infringement procedure concerns the inadequate appropriate assessment for several plants and projects. It's a case opened since 2019 and reflects on the systemic, bad, and incorrect application of Articles 6(3) and 7 of the Habitats Directive, as well as Article 4(4) of the Birds Directive in Cyprus. The European Commission sent a recent opinion in March 2024. Seven out of the 29 projects that are included in the active infringement procedure are situated within and/or adjacent to the Natura 2000 sites of Agama's Peninsula.
Next slide, please. And now, I'm moving into the sustainable development plan of Agama National Forest Park. As you see here, these are the thoughts of the plan as they were explained to us. Next slide, please. This plan includes the improvement of 11 existing main roads and the construction of 14 facilities within Agambas National Forest Park and the Natura 2000 site, which implies a significant and negative impact on the core area of the Agamas Peninsula.
The plant is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the Natura 2000 sites in the Acamas Peninsula, but it is likely to have a significant and negative effect either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. Next slide, please. Now I'm going to give you a glimpse of what the sustainable development plan looks like on the ground. A large part of phase A of this plant, regarding the improvement of 3 out of 11 main forest roads, was implemented between 2022 and 2023 in violation of the legally binding and substantial terms of the appropriate assessment report and the strategic environmental assessment opinion. It has also not been subject to appropriate assessment and environmental impact assessment as a single project, while it is inappropriately co-funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds in the framework of the program Thalia 2021.
One minute, please.
Speaker 50
So, I'll move to the end. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And the next slide. Next slide.
Speaker 1
Now, the ongoing infringement procedures on both by the European Commission have moderately ensured the effective implementation of EU nature conservation law. However, the excessive length of active refrigerant procedures jeopardizes the principle of effectiveness of the EU nature conservation law, especially in environmental cases where time is often shifting to the detriment of biodiversity, and project developers may take advantage of the so-called.
Major gaps remain regarding the adequate representativity of several types of habitats and species of cypress in Cyprus, some of which are found in Agamas.
Next slide, please. The second ongoing infringement procedure is for the lack of conservation objectives and management measures.
Speaker 3
Thank you. We have a lot of arguments from your side, and now one minute for DG.
Speaker 1
This case has been open since 2021. It's about the systemic, bad, and incorrect application of Articles 4(4), 6(1), and 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, as well as Articles 4(1) and 4(4) of the Birds Directive in Cyprus.
Speaker 88
Thank you very much. I'll be very brief. Thank you very much to the petitioner for presenting their information. The commission shares its concerns given the lack of protection for the region of Akamas. That is why we have initiated infringement proceedings, as the petitioner mentioned.
Speaker 1
The European Commission decided in March 2024 to proceed with the referral of the case to the European Court of Justice. Both SACs and SPAs are not adequately protected in cyber, while legally binding and site-specific conservation objectives and management measures have not yet been established for most of the Natura 2,000 sites in Cyprus, including Khersoni Susovagamas. Next slide, please.
Speaker 88
So, this is case 20212064. This is on three things: the designation of areas as special sites of protection, the non-establishment of conservation goals for species and priority habitats, and, thirdly, the lack of conservation measures. Cyprus, as a result of this procedure, has made progress. Sites have been designated. Objectives have been set, but the conservation measures, including for Akabas, have not been set yet.
Speaker 1
The third ongoing infringement procedure concerns the inadequate appropriate assessment for several plants and projects. It is a case open since 2019 and reflects the systemic bad and incorrect application of Article 6(3) and (7) of the Habitats Directive, as well as Article 4 of the Birds Directive in Cyprus. The European Commission sent a recent opinion in March 2024.
Speaker 88
And so, this is possibly new information for the petitioners. A few days ago, on February 19, the commission sent its appeal to the Court of Justice to ask them to condemn Cytmus for this lack. So, it's C112/26. That's the case number. So the commission will now wait for the court's ruling.
Speaker 1
Seven out of the 29 projects that are included in the active infringement procedure are situated within and/or adjacent to the 2,000 sites of Agama's Peninsula. Next slide, please. And now, I'm moving into the sustainable development plan of Agama National Forest Park. As you see here, these are the thoughts of the plan as they were explained to us.
Speaker 88
In the meantime, we will try to help the Cyprus authorities if they make the technical request, for example, by giving them some know-how of conservation measures that could be established or putting them in touch with the national authorities that have set up such measures. And then, just on the second point, the fact that conservation measures have not yet been established does not mean that the projects are done randomly. Paragraph six from the Habitats Directive sets out that before a project can be approved, the impacts need to be assessed if there is a risk that this will affect Natura 2000 sites. So, if this is the case, it must be rejected. And that is the case of the other infringement procedure, based on which the Cyprus authorities have changed their national systems for assessments.
Speaker 1
Next slide, please. This plan includes the improvement of 11 existing main roads and the construction of 14 facility nodes within Agamas National Forest Park and in Adura 2,000 site, which implies a significant and negative impact on the core area of the Acoma Peninsula. Peninsula.
The plant is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the Natura 2000 sites in Acoma's Peninsula, but it is likely to have a significant and negative effect either individually or in combination with other plans or projects.
Next slide, please. Now I'm going to give you a glimpse of what the sustainable development plan looks like on the ground. A large part of phase A of this plant, regarding the improvement of 3 out of 11 main forest roads, has been implemented between 2022 and 2023 in violation of the legally binding and substantial terms of the appropriate assessment report and the strategic environmental assessment opinion.
Thank you.
Speaker 91
Mister Keller, one minute. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. And I would like to talk in German. Thank you.
Speaker 1
It has also not been subject to appropriate assessment and environmental impact assessment as a single project, while it is inappropriately co-funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds in the framework of the program Thalia 2021.
Speaker 92
Thank you very much for the effort that you've made to bring this petition to us, to give your opinion, and to protect that Natura 2000 area. The network goes over five countries of the EU. Q. And makes an incredible contribution to creating or protecting the environment. And we've already heard the report about this from NINSO.
No. No. No. No.
10 seconds.
Speaker 50
So, I'll move to the end. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And the next slide.
Speaker 93
The representative from the commission has already said that there will be an improvement and therefore recommends our group that both of these petitions should be closed. Thank you.
Next slide.
Speaker 1
The ongoing infringement procedures on both by the European Commission have moderately ensured the effective implementation of EU nature conservation law. However, the excessive length of active infringement procedures jeopardizes the principle of effectiveness of the EU nature conservation law, especially in environmental cases where time is often tricky, to the detriment of biodiversity, and project developers may take advantage of the so-called fair company approach.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Chairman. Well, for the reasons we already submitted, we do not want this petition to be closed because the Akamas Peninsula is not just something simple, but a place where we have the biggest biodiversity in Cyprus. So, this has to be protected. Protection of the Akamas Peninsula is also a protection of the principles of the European Union because of the environment. So we want a legally binding measure for full transparency about this.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 88
I'll be very brief. Thank you very much to the petitioner for presenting their information. The commission shares its concerns given the lack of protection for the region of Akamas. That is why we have initiated infringement proceedings, as the petitioner mentioned. So, this is the case 2021-2064.
Speaker 23
Akaemas Peninsula belongs to the community; it belongs to the people. And I really urge you, please, that this should remain open.
Speaker 3
We return now to Madame Petitioner. One minute. Okay. I understand. Yes.
Speaker 88
This is on three things: the designation of areas as special sites of protection, the non-establishment of conservation goals for species and priority habitats, and, third, the lack of conservation measures.
Speaker 1
I'm surprised to hear that somebody wants this petition to be closed after all that is happening and after all the fuss that has been happening in Cyprus, with everyone agreeing, most of the competent authorities agreeing, that they've messed up with Agamas. But I would like to make a request. It's crucially important for the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament to ensure that the European Commission acts as the guardian of the treaties by ensuring the effective implementation of the EU nature conservation law according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Thank you.
Speaker 88
Cyprus, as a result of this procedure, has made progress. Sites have been designated. Objectives have been set, but the conservation measures, including those for February, have not been established yet. The commission sent its appeal to the Court of Justice to ask them to condemn the site for this lack.
So it's 112/26. That's the case number. So, the commission will now wait for the court's ruling. In the meantime, we will try to help the Cyprus authorities if they make the technical request. For example, by giving them some know-how, such as conservation measures that could be established, or putting them in touch with the national authorities that have set up such measures. And then, just on the second point, the fact that conservation measures have not yet been established does not mean that the projects are done randomly.
Speaker 3
The petition should be open. And we will, yes. Infringement. It is an infringement. Okay.
Speaker 3
I think that all is okay. We have one last point. And the last point is no. Difference. No.
Speaker 88
Paragraph six from the Habitats Directive sets out that before a project can be approved, the impacts need to be assessed if there is a risk that it will affect a Natura 2000 site.
See you tomorrow. Yes, please.
Have.
Good evening. A
Speaker 88
So, if this is the case, it must be rejected. And that is the case with the other infringement procedure, based on which the Cyprus authorities have changed their national systems for assessments. Thank you.
Speaker 92
Thank you very much for the effort that you have made to bring this petition to us, to give your opinion, and to protect that Natura 2000 area. The network goes over 5 countries of the Q. And makes an incredible contribution to creating or protecting the environment.
Speaker 93
And we've already heard the report about this from NINSO. The representative from the commission has already said that there will be an improvement and, therefore, recommends that our group close both of these petitions.
Thank you.
One minute.
Speaker 23
Thank you. You, Chairman. Well, for the reasons which we already submitted, we do not want this petition to be closed because the Akemaz Peninsula is not just something simple. But it is a place where we have the biggest biodiversity in Cyprus. So, this has to be protected.
Protection of the Aka Mas Peninsula is also protection of the principles of the European Union. Because of the environment. So we want a legally binding measure for full transparency about this. Akaemas Peninsula belongs to the community. It belongs to the people.
And I really urge you, please, that this should remain open.
I understand.
Speaker 1
I'm surprised to hear that somebody wants this petition to be closed after all that is happening and after all that has been happening in Cyprus, and everyone agrees. Most of the competent authorities agree that they've messed up with Agamas.
But I would like to make a request. It's crucially important for the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament to ensure that the European Commission acts as the guardian of the treaties by ensuring the effective implementation of the EU nature conservation law according to Article 17(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Thank you.
Speaker 3
The. The petition should be open. And we will, it is an infringement. Infringement. Okay.
Speaker 3
I think that all is okay. We have one last point, and the last point is defense. No. Thank you.
Tomorrow.
Thank you. See you soon. See you tomorrow. Yes, please. Have a nice evening.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.