WRITTEN QUESTION E-3590/01

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Obligation for the Netherlands government to carry out an environmental impact assessment as a consequence of the Commission's reasoned opinion of 18 July

The Commission recently decided to take action against the Netherlands on the grounds of infringement of the European directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. In its reasoned opinion of 18 July, the Commission stated that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had not fulfilled the obligations deriving from Articles 2(1) and 4(2) of the directive as regards a number of dyke projects in the district of Sliedrecht not yet carried out (dyke sections 10-15).

In a letter of 11 October replying to the reasoned opinion, the Netherlands government stated that it could not accept the Commission's position that it had failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to the EIA directive with regard to dyke sections 10-15 in the district of Sliedrecht. It was also unable to agree with the Commission's opinion that there was still scope for alternatives or even a study of alternatives.

1. Does the Commission consider that the interests of the environment and quality of life, which are the basis of the EIA directive, must be safeguarded at all times?

2. Does the Commission consider that, in this matter, the Netherlands government has to date taken inadequate account of these interests?

3. Does the Commission stand by its opinion that an EIA requirement exists with regard to this project, and that an EIA must therefore at all events be carried out?

4. If so, what means does the Commission envisage using in order to force the Netherlands government to carry out an EIA of this project?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Community Law is meant to be applied in practice by the authorities of the Member States. It is the duty of the Commission, pursuant to Article 211 of the EC Treaty to ensure that Member States comply with the obligations lying upon them under EC Law. In this context, compliance with the provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (hereinafter referred to as the Directive)(1) can not be an exception. It is worth noting that the Directive aims at both preventing/minimising damage to the environment and at giving the public adequate information on the likely effects of the projects on the environment and the possibility to participate in environmental decision making.

Since dykes belong to one of the types of projects listed in Annex II of the Directive(2), the authorities of the Netherlands should have considered whether or not the Sliedrecht dykes were likely to have a significant effect on the environment, by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location with a view to make them eventually subject to an environmental assessment with all the guarantees set out in Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive (including public consultation).

In the light of the information available the Commission is of the opinion that the authorities of the Netherlands have not complied with the above provisions of the Directive in the case of the Sliedrecht dykes.

In order to ensure compliance in this case with the provisions of the Directive, the Commission initiated an infringement proceeding pursuant to Article 226 of the EEC Treaty in the framework of which a reasoned opinion has already been issued.

The reply of the Government of the Netherlands to this reasoned opinion is currently under assessment.

If the ongoing assessment confirms that the Netherlands has not taken the measures necessary to comply with the reasoned opinion issued by the Commission, the latter will consider whether this case should be brought before the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ L 216, 3.8.1991.

(2) Point 10(e) of Annex II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC.