WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Asti-Cuneo motorway link

On the grounds that the act was incompatible with the provisions of Directive 89/440/EEC(1), the deadline for the transposition of which had already passed when the act was adopted, the Italian Council of State declared unlawful the additional act of 1991 extending the concession granted to the firm SATAP to the Asti-Cuneo section of the Turin-Piacenza motorway. Following this judgement the government announced that SATAP's concession for the Asti-Cuneo section would probably be withdrawn.

With regard to the Commission's answer to Question P-1378/00(2) on the issue of environmental impact assessment, the modified motorway project cannot be considered an adequate response to the criticisms levelled at the original project during the EIA procedure. In fact, the route of the second project was not substantially modified only 2 km of an approximately 77 km stretch were revised and the route continues to follow to a great extent the course of the River Stura, a torrential river subject to severe flooding. Furthermore, the project was approved by the Italian cabinet in September 1994 without the submission of justifying evidence the alleged technical findings of the Ministry for Public Works were in fact never published and on the basis of the misguided technical opinion of an official in the secretariat of the Ministry for the Environment, which was not consistent with the provisional unfavourable opinion issued by the EIA ministerial committee in June 1994. This episode is being investigated by the Italian Audit Commission. As requested by the Commission itself, the questioner is supplying information in an annex to this question and would refer the Commission to the national highways authority ANAS (via Monzambano 10, Rome) for details of the stretch of motorway under dispute.

Does the Commission intend to bring infringement proceedings against Italy, in the light of the recent opinion of the Council of State, if the Italian State does not withdraw the concession from SATAP?

What steps will the Commission take to challenge the declaration by the Italian cabinet authorising the construction of the motorway link despite the negative outcome of the EIA procedure?

How can a Member State be allowed to authorise the construction of public works ignoring the negative outcome of the EIA procedure? Is such an act acceptable in the light of Community legislation on the subject?

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.

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

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities for the information that is needed to assess the compatibility with Community legislation on public contracts of the construction of the new Asti-Cuneo section of motorway, as well as the extension of the concession to the SATAP company, as referred to by the honourable Member.

It should be pointed out that, if when the information is considered it turns out that the procedures that were followed are incompatible with the aforementioned Community law, the Commission could initiate infringement proceedings as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, regardless of the opinion expressed by the Italian Council of State. It is worth mentioning, in fact, that the procedure in question is autonomous in nature and cannot depend on procedures under national law.