Koureta’s intervention in the Parliamentary Committee on the Water Management Organization of Thessaly: “The bill is sketchy, illegal and in the wrong direction”

The Regional Governor of Thessaly, Mr. Dimitris Kouretas, requested the withdrawal of the Water Protection Bill and the establishment of a Water Management Organization of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, intervening in the competent parliamentary committee.
Speaking to the committee, Mr. Kouretas emphasized that the procedure followed betrays sloppiness, deals with legal issues and is attempted “in a vacuum” since it is not connected to the existing watershed and flood risk management plans, based on the corresponding Community directives.
In fact, the Regional Governor of Thessaly used the water management model of the Netherlands, the oldest corresponding organization in Europe, saying that in the country of the same company that prepared the Master Plan for Thessaly, the corresponding organization belongs to the public and cooperates with its 21 regions country to manage watersheds and flood risks. “I wonder why the Dutch company did not follow the model of its country, but proposes a private scheme in Greece” characteristically said Mr. Kouretas. Also, the Regional Governor emphasized that such bills should be promoted after extensive consultation with all the public and private sector stakeholders and not with a sham procedure, such as the one followed in this case, which, among other things, violated the law due to its short duration.
In more detail, Mr. Kouretas, speaking to the committee, emphasized:
A. General observation
1. The aforementioned N/S functions in addition to the HVA Master Plan, which even makes extensive reference to the “Thessaly Water Management Organization”, and they were still in “public consultation”. It is unclear whether the provisions of this M/S will supersede the corresponding provisions of the HVA Master Plan or whether the said M/S provisions will be applied in conjunction with the above provisions of the HVA Master Plan. In any case, the procedure followed betrays sloppiness and constitutes a violation of the rules of sound legislation. In particular, according to Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, during the legislative process “adequate timetables for effective participation must be established”. In this case, the duration of the “public consultation” was limited to eight (8) days, which according to common sense does not constitute an “adequate schedule”. Consequently, there is a violation of the aforementioned Article 8 of the Aarhus Convention, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
2. The proposed regulation of articles 3 to 8 of the N/S concerns exclusively the establishment and operation of the “Water Management Organization of Thessaly Anonymi Etairia (ODYTH SA). In addition to the legal issues raised in relation to the establishment of the Limited Liability Company (and to which we refer below), it should be underlined that the said establishment and operation of O.D.Y.TH. S.A. is attempted in a vacuum. In particular, it is not linked to existing or under-formation management plans, such as the river basin management plan [ΣΔΛΑΠ] of Thessaly (framework directive 2000/60), the flood risk management plan [ΣΔΚΠ] of Thessaly (directive 2007/60) or the regional climate change adaptation plan of Thessaly (law 4936/2022). The problem is made even more acute by the European Commission’s referral of Greece for breaching the Water Framework Directive 2000/60 and the Flood Risk Management Directive 2007/60 (reference number, INFR(2022)2191 /13-3-2024).
B. Comments on the individual settings of the N/S
3. The basic regulations of the N/S regarding the protection of waters in Thessaly refer exclusively to the recommendation of the O.D.Y.TH. S.A. (article 4 of the N/S). In particular, according to article twenty of its Statute, O.D.Y.TH. S.A. prepares the SDLAP of Thessaly (framework directive 2000/60) and the SDKP of Thessaly (directive 2007/60). The issue that arises is whether and to what extent the recommendation of O.D.Y.TH. S.A. it is compatible with EU legislation on water management, flood risk management and the regional climate change adaptation plan. For this issue, we point out the following:
4. Firstly, to emphasize that it is mandatory by EU law to apply jointly, the Water Framework Directive 2000/60, the Flood Risk Management Directive 2007/60 (see recital no .6 and 17 and Articles 7 and 9 of Directive 2007/60) and the regional climate change plan [ΠεΣΠΚΑ] (as provided for in article 6 of Law 4936/2022 [κλιματικός νόμος] in conjunction with Article 4(2) of Directive 2007/60 which specifically refers to climate change).
5. The drafting and implementation of the above regulations (see point 4) are subject to the strategic environmental assessment process of Directive 2001/42. In article 5 paragraph 3 of the same above directive it is provided that for the environmental assessment of plans and programs in the environment all available information required by other Community legislation should be used.
6. In accordance with the above, there must be two-way information about the environmental impacts of the Thessaly Environmental Impact Assessment (Article 13 of Directive 2000/60), the SDCP (Article 7 of Directive 2007/60) and the Thessaly Environmental Protection Act (Article 6 of Law 4936/2022).Consequently, it is of particular importance to define a single public authority regarding the implementation of all the above regulations.
7. The N/S makes no reference to directive 2001/42, the implementation of which is a prerequisite for the legal preparation and approval of the above management plans. In fact, Article 2 of Directive 2001/42 (Article 2 KYA B 1225/2006, as applicable) provides that the “planning authority” which is a public authority and as such is responsible for drawing up or approving plans (such as those mentioned above) means the public administration, the OTAs. and the NPDD. Additionally, the public – as defined above – “competent authority” coordinates the consultation process. The omission of any reference to Directive 2001/42 in the N/S suggests that the aim is not to apply it as, according to the above, the competent authority for drawing up the plans is exclusively the public “planning authority” and not the proposed O.D .Y.Th. S.A. The above omission constitutes a direct violation of Directive 2001/42 and, consequently, all management plans to be drawn up and approved will be illegal (CJEU jurisprudence is absolutely clear).
8. As mentioned (see point 3), according to article twenty of its Statute, O.D.Y.TH. S.A. prepares the SDLAP of Thessaly (framework directive 2000/60) and the SDKP of Thessaly (directive 2007/60). However, Article 3(2) of Directive 2000/60 and Article 3(1) of Directive 2007/60 state that for the implementation of the above Directives it is necessary to ensure the appropriate administrative arrangements, including the identification of the appropriate competent authority. Therefore, the preparation of the management plans must be done by a public authority and in no case by an NPID such as the proposed O.D.Y.Th. S.A. This follows from the case law of the CJEU and from the implementation of the directives by all other member states. Consequently, in accordance with the above and taking into account the regulations of Directive 2001/42, as set forth, the proposed article twenty of the statutes of O.D.Y.Th. S.A. it is illegal as it violates the above EU legislation.
9. The twelfth article of the Statute of O.D.Y.TH. S.A. (article 4 of the N/S) provides that the Organization may enter into contracts with the object of water management, flood management, as well as the drafting of studies in these areas. It should be emphasized that the above provision is based on par. 6 of article 12 of Law 4412/2016. However, article 12 of directive 2014/24 (article 12, paragraph 6 of law 4412/2016) does not apply because O.D.Y.Th. S.A. does not meet the conditions for concluding contracts with contracting authorities, as described in article 12 paragraph 1, point a) and c) of Directive 2014/24. Therefore, Article 12 of Directive 2014/24 (Article 12 of Law 4412/2016) is wrongly proposed as the legal basis.
10. Based on the above, contracts with the subject of water, whether they concern projects or studies, must be made with the contracting authority of the Region of Thessaly because, among others, it is the one that draws up and implements the PeSPKA, which is directly related and synergy with the SDLP and the SDCP (for synergy, see Commission Communications COM(2021) 82 final, 24.2.2021 and COM(2024) 91 final, 12.3.2024. Also, IPCC, 5th Assessment Report, 2014) .
11. For all of the above reasons, we propose the withdrawal of the N/S so that a substantial consultation can take place with all the public and private bodies of the Region and with the interested public.