# CE2004078EN.01019502.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/195 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/195

---

(2004/C 78 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2947/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject:   Trupbach industrial estate

Subject:

On 24 April 2003, the Commission delivered its opinion on the plan for an industrial estate on the former military training area of Trupbach in Siegerland. The Commission rejected the plan while, on the same day, three other projects on FFH sites (Rotterdam port, a mine at Bottrop, a railway line in Sweden) were given the go-ahead on grounds of overriding public interest. The Commission justifies its rejection of the plan, in particular, on the grounds that it was not adequately shown that there were no alternatives to the proposal and that the competent authorities (the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) did not propose any compensatory measures.

Is it correct that the opinion on the Trupbach industrial estate is the only negative opinion delivered by the Commission on a project planned within an FFH site? Is it correct that decisive reasons for the negative opinion were that no compensatory measures were proposed and that it was not adequately shown why there were no alternatives to this project? Was this a case of failure to apply the FFH Directive properly? Can the Commission confirm that an application which put forward better reasons why there are no alternatives available and which proposed compensatory measures would possibly hold out the prospect of a positive opinion from the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

(24 October 2003)

Since the adoption of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) the Commission has issued six opinions in accordance to Article 6, paragraph 4 of that Directive. The Commission opinion of 24 April 2003 concerning the creation of a new industrial area ‘Siegerland’ within the former military training area Trupbach near Siegen/Freudenberg (North Rhine-Westfalia) is the only negative opinion issued so far in this context.

1

On the basis of the information available, the Commission concluded that a number of alternative sites exist that may represent relevant alternatives for providing additional space for industrial settlement to the city of Siegen. According to Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the absence of alternative solutions is a first condition for authorising projects that have a significant negative impact on sites protected by this Directive.

The Commission also expressed the view that there was no evidence for particular imperative reasons of overriding public interest for creating one large additional industrial area on the Trupbach site, whereas the absence of alternative sites in the region had not been clearly demonstrated.

The provision of compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected is an additional condition to the authorisation of projects that have a significant negative effect on sites protected by Directive 92/43/EEC, also when there is no alternative to a project and when a project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest. This condition was not fulfilled.

In relation to the planned industrial site in Trupbach (Siegen), Directive 92/43/EEC was correctly applied in so far that a Commission opinion was requested according to Article 6(4) of the Directive and that the project was not authorised by the competent authorities before an opinion was issued. However, as it was laid out above, not all the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) were applied in a satisfactory way. Detailed guidelines on the correct application of these provisions were published by the Commission in November 2000 and in 2001 (2).

2

Any possible new request for a revised Commission opinion on the planned industrial area would only make sense if clear evidence could be provided, demonstrating that there are no feasible alternatives to the planned project, that the project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest and that all compensatory measures are being taken that are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. In the event of a renewed application the Commission will base its opinion on an analysis of the information presented related to these elements.

---

(1)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

1

(2)  Managing Natura 2000 Sites — The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000) and Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites (Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001).

2

---