WRITTEN QUESTION No. 986/96 by Magda AELVOET to the Commission. Aviation fuel pipeline in Huldenberg
Date: 1996-04-26
Institutions: AELVOET, European Parliament
Subjects: Belgium, environmental impact, impact study, interpretation of the law, military base, oil pipeline, protection of animal life













EUR-Lex - 91996E0986 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0986

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 986/96 by Magda AELVOET to the Commission. Aviation fuel pipeline in Huldenberg  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0022 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0986/96 by Magda Aelvoet (V) to the Commission (26 April 1996)Subject: Aviation fuel pipeline in HuldenbergThe Huldenberg commune recently learned of plans to lay an aviation fuel pipeline. This pipeline forms part of Belgium's NATO obligations and is to run from Melsbroek to Beauvechain. It constitutes a serious threat to the Dijle valley which is covered by the directive on the conservation of wild birds. As the pipeline is to run through this protected area an environmental impact assessment (EIA) would normally be required. Under current environmental legislation in Flanders and Belgium, however, no EIA is required for military installations.1. Was the Commission aware of the plans to lay this pipeline?2. Does it consider that on the basis of European provisions on EIAs an assessment is in fact required for this specific project?3. If so, will the Commission ensure that an EIA is carried out for this project?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (19 June 1996)1. The Commission is not aware of the plans to lay the pipeline in question.2. Article 1(4) of 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. )) states that it does not cover projects serving national defence purposes.As Article 223(1)(a) of the EC Treaty states, no Member State is obliged to supply information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to the essential interests of its security.The obligation under Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC ((Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992). )) appropriately to assess the implications of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site designated as a special protection area pursuant to Directive 79/409/EEC ((Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.4.1979), as last amended by Directive 94/24/EC of 8 June 1994 (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994). )) but likely to affect this site significantly must be interpreted in the light of this provision of the Treaty.3. The Commission is unable to comment on the specific case referred to by the Honourable Member solely on the basis of the information currently available to it. The Commission therefore asks the Honourable Member to let it have any other information she may have on the pipeline project in question. It must be stressed, however, that it falls first and foremost to the Member State which is in sole possession of all the information on military projects which it intends to undertake, to decide to what extent certain aspects of these projects could be made public.