WRITTEN QUESTION P-3528/98

by Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(13 November 1998)

Subject: Application of Directive 85/337/EEC to a part of a Member State (or several Member States), with particular regard to the conversion of former military airfields, taking Weeze/Laarbruch in Germany as an example

A ruling of the European Court of Justice criticised the German legislation on environmental impact assessments and deemed it incompatible with Directive 85/337/EEC(1), on the specific grounds that not all projects covered by the Directive had been subjected to an EIA.

1. Do former military airfields which are to be converted into civil installations belong as a matter of principle to the group of projects criticised by the Court, or does the Commission go along with the view expressed by the Federal German Government that authorisation under Section 6 of the Aviation Act (shortened authorisation procedure without any EIA) is adequate?

2. Does a specific criticism arise from the fact that some of the airfields which might possibly be affected adjoin national borders so that the right to overfly another country - the Netherlands in the case of Weeze/Laarbruch - must be settled?

3. In this particular instance, must account be taken of Netherlands legislation as well?

4. Is the European Commission aware of any comparable cases in other Member States? If so, how were they tackled?

5. Is the European Commission aware of any comparable cases or individual projects within Germany where the EIA procedure was circumvented? If so, how were they tackled?

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 1999)

1. It is assumed that the Honourable Member refers to the judgement of the Court of justice of 22 October 1998 in Case C-301/95 (Commission/Germany) in which the Court ruled that Germany had infringed Directive 85/337/EEC by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the Directive within the prescribed period, by failing to communicate to the Commission all the measures which it has taken to comply with the Directive, by not requiring an environmental impact assessment for all projects on which such an assessment had to be carried out in compliance with the Directive, where the consent procedure was commenced after 3 July 1988, and by excluding in advance from the environmental impact assessment requirement whole classes of projects listed in Annex II to the Directive.

No specific reference is made by the ruling to military airports transformed into civilian airports. In consequence, it has to be seen on a case-by-case assessment whether in specific cases this ruling might cover them. The Commission is not in a position to comment on the opinion of the German government as regards paragraph 6 of the Luftverkehrsgesetz, given that it has not been informed about such an opinion.

2. and 3. Under Article 7 of Directive 85/337/EEC, where a Member State is aware that a project is likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State or where a Member State likely to be significantly affected so requests, the Member State where the project is to be carried out shall forward the information gathered pursuant to Article 5 to the other Member State at the same time as it makes it available to its own nationals. Such information shall serve as a basis for any consultations necessary in the framework of the bilateral relations between two Member States on a reciprocal and equivalent basis. This provision might apply in the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member.

4. and 5. As regards the application of Directive 85/337/EEC to airports covered by its Annex II in other Member States, the Commission has been informed about a case in the framework of proceedings under Article 177 of the EC Treaty concerning an airport in Bozen, Italy. In this case the Commission takes the view that an impact assessment should have been carried out. As regards such projects in Germany, the Commission has been informed about several complaints concerning cases where impact assessments have not been carried out, as a consequence of the failure to implement the Directive correctly. In such cases the Commission referred the complainants to the infringement proceedings which have resulted in the ruling of the Court mentioned above (point 1).

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