WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link

Two questions have been put to the Commission on the subject of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link (P-1378/00(1) and E-2356-00(2)). However, in its reply of 14 September 2000 to the latter question E-2356/00 the Commission did not, as requested, address the aspects relating to the controversial matter of the environmental impact assessment. The Commission is therefore requested to give a further reply, bearing in mind that the modified Asti-Cuneo motorway project cannot be considered to meet the criteria laid down for the original project in the environmental impact assessment, as suggested by the Commission in its reply to the first question (P-1378/00).

The second plan has not, in fact, significantly changed the layout of the motorway link: only 2 kms have been modified, out of a total of approximately 77 kms which for the most part still run along the banks of the river Stura, a fast-flowing river that is subject to serious flooding. Inter alia, the Council's approval of September 1994 was given without an argued justification the requested technical checks by the Ministry of Public Works were not in fact ever published and on the basis of an incorrect technical opinion given by an official in the Environment Ministry's secretariat which was inconsistent with the unfavourable interim opinion delivered by the ministerial committee in the context of the environmental impact assessment of June 1994. An inquiry into the latter episode is currently in progress in the Italian Court of Auditors.

Meanwhile, although the Council of State's ruling on the application for suspension of the work which was turned down by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in the context of the appeal of 2 December 1995 lodged by the environmental associations is expected by 1 November, work on the most controversial stretch of the motorway (Massimini-Cuneo) has recently been intensified(3).

Can the Commission state its views on the environmental impact assessment procedure? What measures does the Commission propose to take in order to relaunch discussion of the Council of Ministers decision authorising construction of the link despite the negative outcome of the environmental impact assessment?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 218.

(2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 190.

(3) The Regional Court has not yet ruled, however, on the merits of the appeal itself.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 2000)

The fact of granting a development consent to a project which has been made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure, and which has received a negative assessment, does not necessarily constitute a breach of Community directives on EIA (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985(1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(2), amending Directive 85/337/EEC).

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all necessary measures, including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

In the specific case, not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.