WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Complain by Manfred Jost, complaint No 00/51228, SG (2000) A/14901 against the Federal Republic of Germany concerning coal mining at the Warndt/Luisenthal mine

1. Is the Commission aware that a complaint procedure by the person lodging this complaint concerning the above colliery was already pending before the Commission and that in this case the Court of Justice ruled against the Federal Republic of Germany for delay in transposing European law (Case C-301/95)?

2. Is the Commission aware that even after the Court of Justice's judgment in October 1998 the national authorities the Saarland mining authorities continued to permit coal mining without carrying out the necessary environmental impact assessment (Directive 85/337/EEC(1)), despite being repeatedly urged to do so by the complainant?

3. Is the Commission aware that the Saarland mining authorities are still refusing to halt mining, currently being conducted without an environmental impact assessment, and to carry out such an assessment?

4. How does the Commission intend to enforce the relevant European legislation, especially as in a letter of 20 April 1999 it assured the complainant that it was now watching over Germany to ensure that it took action consequent to the judgment?

5. How does the Commission ensure that necessary decisions are not taken only after months and in some cases years of delay, in which time irreversible conditions are brought about by the mining activity?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

1. and 3. The Commission is aware of complaint 91/4626 concerning the coal mining activities at Luisenthal which was lodged in 1991. That complaint has been grouped together with 15 other similar complaints concerning the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC(1) by Germany under the main procedure 90/4710. The latter procedure finally led to the Court judgement in case C-301/95 where the Court ruled on 22 October 1998 that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty by (1) not taking all measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 85/337/EEC within the time allowed; (2) failing to notify to the Commission the necessary transposing measures; (3) not providing for an environmental impact assessment concerning all the projects, which fall under the scope of application of the above mentioned Directive and for which the development consent application was made after the 3 July 1988; and (4) excluding entire classes of projects in Annex II of the above mentioned Directive from the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment.

2. The Commission is also aware through new complaint number 2000/5128 of the fact that the Saarland mining authorities continued to permit coal mining without carrying out an environmental impact assessment.

4. The Commission has informed the complainant about the above mentioned Court judgement and has indicated to him that the Commission is now assessing the action taken by Germany to ensure that the judgement is complied with. In the follow-up to the said Court judgement, the Commission has launched a new infringement procedure based on Article 228 (ex-Article 171)of the EC Treaty by addressing according to the rules a reminder on 12 November 1998, a letter of formal notice issued under Article 228 on 14 July 1999 and a Reasoned Opinion also under Article 228 on 1 February 2000 to the Federal Republic of Germany. Since Germany still did not implement the Court judgement fully, the Commission sent an application to the European Court of Justice pursuant to Article 228 of the EC Treaty on 12 February 2001, requesting a daily penalty payment of 237 600. The case is still pending before the Court.

5. The Commission has on top of the above mentioned procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty also addressed a letter of formal notice to Germany pursuant to Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty after receiving information included in the current complaint. The German response has not arrived yet. This decision by the Commission, i.e. to open another individual procedure in parallel to the main case whilst the latter case is still to be decided by the Court, is not necessarily the normal procedure but appeared to be justified in the present case as it was felt that urgent action should be taken. The Commission has therefore done everything possible to ensure that the necessary decisions are taken without delay.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.