Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 9k
24 January 2020
E-000400/2020
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 138
Ivan Vilibor Sinčić
 Subject: Construction of LNG terminal in Omišalj contrary to the approved main design

The LNG terminal in Omišalj has been designed as a floating terminal (FSRU) in the first phase and as a land terminal in the second phase. The floating terminal is being built in contradiction of the main design, and it bears increasingly little resemblance to the design presented to the Commission that the Commission agreed to co-finance. For example, in the main design, wide pillars of caissons lying on the seafloor are listed as supporting the structure. In practice, the construction of pylons/special types of pillars in unstable areas such as this, where there is a possibility of underground caves, threatens structural security and can lead to the collapse of the structure, according to experts. The seabed has not been tested for these different pillars, which is especially dangerous given that the planned structure is an energy plant.

Other changes have also been made to the approved design, such as a modified boat mooring that will make it impossible to build a land terminal in the second phase.

Does such a subsequent unilateral modification of the main design jeopardise EU co-financing?

Will Croatia be at risk of having to reimburse the EUR 100 million in co-financing, or could it face other sanctions if the LNG terminal never – at least not within the stipulated timeframe – functions as a land terminal but only as a floating terminal?

To what extent can a constructed LNG terminal deviate from an approved design without sanctions?

Original language of question: HR
Last updated: 13 February 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy