# CE2004070EN.01006001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/60 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

(2004/C 70 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject:   Bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland, question E-0543/03

In my question E-0543/03( 1 ) of 28 February 2003 I drew to the Commission's attention the project to construct a high-level bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland. The reason for my question was my concern that protected areas forming part of Europe's natural heritage could be permanently encroached upon using ERDF money.

In its answer the Commission informed me that the financing of the bridge did not fall within the Commission's responsibility, as the German authorities had not requested assistance for the project under EU funds. The implementation report on the OP in respect of the ERDF (infrastructure) shows expenditure of EUR 23 400 for the B96n (new construction), part of which relates to the Rügen bridge. The Minister of Economic Affairs for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern indicated, during a discussion with citizens on 2 April 2003 in Bergen, that the authorities did not propose to submit an individual application for financing for the bridge to the Commission but an overall application for transport projects in general.

| 1. | (a)
Is the Commission aware that ERDF money has already gone into the above project? (b)
What is the Commission's view of the provision of such assistance in the light of the circumstances set out in my last question (fact that there is no need for the bridge, implausible financing plan, damage to nature, bridge to stand in the middle of a route linking European protection areas for migratory birds and seabirds)? | (a) | Is the Commission aware that ERDF money has already gone into the above project? | (b) | What is the Commission's view of the provision of such assistance in the light of the circumstances set out in my last question (fact that there is no need for the bridge, implausible financing plan, damage to nature, bridge to stand in the middle of a route linking European protection areas for migratory birds and seabirds)? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Is the Commission aware that ERDF money has already gone into the above project? | | | | |
| (b) | What is the Commission's view of the provision of such assistance in the light of the circumstances set out in my last question (fact that there is no need for the bridge, implausible financing plan, damage to nature, bridge to stand in the middle of a route linking European protection areas for migratory birds and seabirds)? | | | | |

| 2. | (a)
What is the Commission's view of the wish of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern authorities to submit an overall application? (b)
Does the Commission intend to agree to such an application? If so, will it ensure that projects included in it are adequately examined? | (a) | What is the Commission's view of the wish of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern authorities to submit an overall application? | (b) | Does the Commission intend to agree to such an application? If so, will it ensure that projects included in it are adequately examined? |
| --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | What is the Commission's view of the wish of the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern authorities to submit an overall application? | | | | |
| (b) | Does the Commission intend to agree to such an application? If so, will it ensure that projects included in it are adequately examined? | | | | |

| 3. | Has the Commission concluded, following its examination of the relevant documents, that the Federal Republic of Germany is fulfilling its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC( 2 ) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora? |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of plans to build a new bridge across the Ziegelgraben and Strelasund — to the west of the existing road-rail draw bridge. The new bridge is meant to be a suspension bridge arching over the Ziegelgraben to allow ships to pass underneath. It connects two segments of the new federal road B96n — one between the A20 and Rügendamm (land side) and one between Altefähr and Bergen (on the island of Rügen).

The authorities have confirmed that, following a request from the Commission, they are conducting an additional assessment of the possible effects of the bridge on the movement of birds. The Commission has not yet received the final report of this assessment and therefore cannot express an opinion on conformity with the requirements of Community law.

Responsibility for the new bridge is entirely a matter for the authorities in Germany and no Community funds are going into the bridge now or in the future.

The German Ministry of Transport, Construction and Housing submitted an application for the co-financing of the new B96n road in 2002. The Commission has analysed the application and has asked the authorities to provide details about their plans for the sustainable development and integrated transport development of the island of Rügen and the adjoining region. The Commission has not yet completed its examination of the dossier and the availability of Community support for the project has therefore not yet been decided.

Any such examination must be carried out in accordance with Articles 25 and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds( 3 ).

---

( 1 )  OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 144.

( 2 )  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

( 3 )  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---