WRITTEN QUESTION E-1801/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Environmental impact study on the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS-17 highway (Asturias, Spain)

In the preparation of the information report on the construction of the Puente del Arco to El Condado section of the AS-17 highway (Asturias, Spain), and in the environmental impact study,

only one route was considered. This is contrary to Directive 85/337/EEC(1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC(2), which provides for the study of three separate routes, thus enabling the option with the least environmental and social impact to be selected.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does the Commission feel that Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC, has been correctly applied in the case in point?

What measures could the Commission take, in conjunction with the Spanish authorities, to ensure that the alternatives to the projected route are studied and that the one with the least social and environmental impact is adopted?

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

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Commission was not aware of the situation reported by the Honourable Member. However, the information given in the written question suggests that the road building project to which the Honourable Member refers is not covered by Annex I of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

If, instead, the road building project is regarded as covered by Annex II then, in accordance with Article 4(2) of the Directive, it is up to the Member State to determine, either on a case-by-case basis or on the basis of thresholds or criteria set by the Member State or by a combination of both these approaches, which projects are likely to have a significant impact on the environment and therefore require an environmental assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive. Member States must take the criteria laid down in Annex III of the Directive into consideration when making that decision.

Moreover, Directive 85/337/EEC does not stipulate a minimum number of alternatives which must be examined. Annex IV of the Directive lists the information to be provided by a developer, including an outline of the main alternatives studied and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.

Having examined the information provided by the Honourable Member, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for suspecting that the Spanish authorities have contravened Directive 85/337/EEC. Nonetheless, should the Commission receive further information indicating that the Directive has not been correctly applied, it will take steps to ensure compliance with Community law in the case in point.

Furthermore, according to the information received from the competent Spanish authorities, the road building project to which the Honourable Member refers is not cofinanced under the Structural Fund.