WRITTEN QUESTION E-0587/02

by Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Massimo Carraro (PSE)and Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Failure to carry out environmental impact assessment

Article 27 of the Veneto regional law No 10/99 has been ruled invalid on the grounds of incompatibility with the EU principles concerning environmental impact assessment (Commission Directive 85/337/EEC(1)), in a reasoned opinion of 3 August 2000 concerning breaches of Community environmental legislation by regional authorities, including the Italian region of Veneto. However, under the above law the Veneto region has

authorised yet another category 2B discharge of woodpulp, considered as perishable waste, and proposes to store this waste overground in the municipality of Silea (Treviso province), without having carried out a prior environmental impact assessment and in breach of the preventive and precautionary principle laid down in the Single European Act of 1986 and incorporated in Italy by Law 909/1986.

This discharge affects the route of the Via Claudia Augusta, the road which linked ancient Rome with northern Europe and is therefore of Community interest, as well as the adjoining Parco del Sile.

Operations are continuing despite the fragility of the ground waters and the hydro-geological system.

In view of the contradiction between Article 1 of regional law No 14 of 8 May 1989 and the Aarhus Convention of 25 June 1998, as incorporated in Italy by the law of 16 March 2001, and the consequent impossibility of any legal action by citizens, can the Commission state whether the Veneto region is in any instances in breach of Community principles and indicate what preventive measures it intends to adopt to obtain an immediate suspension of operations?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

According to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, whether before or after amendments by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997(1), Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects covered by the Directive are identified in the annexes.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling into Annex II are to be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. However, Member States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment in order to establish whether Annex II projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. The above mentioned determination is known as screening.

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question refers could fall within the scope of Directive 85/337/EEC, and, in particular, into categories 11c of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC before the amendments (Installations for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste, unless included in Annex I) and/or 11b of Annex II of Directive 85/3337/EEC after the amendments (Installations for the disposal of waste projects not included in Annex I).

In the specific case, as it is not 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, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the compliance with Community law.

Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it would not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the compliance with relevant Community law.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.