# CE2004078EN.01077301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/773 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | --------- |

---

(2004/C 78 E/0823)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3061/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Threat to the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ (No 537) from a road-building project to be carried out with assistance from the European Structural Funds

In spring 2000 the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ was not notified to the Commission as a single natural habitat, but rather, on the basis of scientific findings concerning the spread of the species in need of protection (CJEC judgment of 7 November 2000, Case C-371/98( 1 )),. as two separate sites. A roughly 50-metre-wide corridor runs through the middle of the protected area. The German Land Brandenburg intends to use the corridor as the route of the northern section of the Falkensee by-pass (L20). The decision to exclude the strip of land in question cannot be justified on nature conservancy grounds, in particular because this area forms, along with the FFH protected area ‘Spandauer Forst’ (No 3445-301), a natural whole.

| 1. | (a)
Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC( 2 ) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area as a whole? (b)
Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’? If so, what arguments can it put forward to substantiate that view?
If not, will it call on the Brandenburg Land Government to carry out a detailed FFH impact study and to revise its plans on the basis of the findings of that study? | (a) | Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC( 2 ) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area as a whole? | (b) | Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’? |
| --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| (a) | Does the Commission share the view taken by the Brandenburg Land Government that the decision to divide and thus dismember the FFH protected area ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ is consistent with the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC( 2 ) and that the excluded strip need not also be identified as a protected area, however logical such a move would be on nature conservancy grounds? If so, why does the Commission take the view that the by-pass must be routed through the protected area and why, in its view, does the road-building project take priority over nature conservancy? If not, what steps has the Commission taken, or will it take, in order to safeguard the protected status of the area as a whole? | | | | |
| (b) | Does the Commission share the view of the Brandenburg Land Government that the planned road will have little impact on the neighbouring FFH protected areas ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’? | | | | |

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that the Brandenburg Land Government is considering using resources from the European Structural Funds for this road-building project? Does the Commission approve of this plan and does it take the view that such a decision would be consistent with the regulation governing the Structural Funds and the horizontal task ‘protecting and improving the natural environment’ laid down in that regulation? |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2003)

The Commission has not received a complaint, or any other information, on the planned construction of the by-pass ‘L 20’ in the corridor between the proposed sites of Community interest (‘pSCIs’) ‘Falkenseer Kuhlaake’ and ‘Spandauer Forst’ in Brandenburg. On the basis of the limited information provided in the written question, the Commission cannot decide whether or not Articles 4(1) and 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive), or any other Community law, may have been violated.

The Commission will now start an own-initiative investigation on the case. The German Government will be asked to provide additional information and to take a position on the case.

A decision to co-finance the project under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) programme of Brandenburg has not been taken. To be eligible for ERDF funding, any project has to fully comply with Community environmental legislation in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds( 3 ).

---

( 1 )  OJ C 28, 27.1.2001, p. 2.

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

( 3 )  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

---