WRITTEN QUESTION No. 953/97 by Jup WEBER to the Commission. Draft law authorizing the Luxembourg Government to build a road linking Luxembourg and Ettelbruck
Date: 1997-03-07
Institutions: European Parliament, WEBER JUP
Subjects: EC Directive, Luxembourg, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, infringement of EU law, protected area, protected species, road building













EUR-Lex - 91997E0953 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91997E0953

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 953/97 by Jup WEBER to the Commission. Draft law authorizing the Luxembourg Government to build a road linking Luxembourg and Ettelbruck  


Official Journal C 319 , 18/10/1997 P. 0203 





WRITTEN QUESTION P-0953/97 by Jup Weber (ARE) to the Commission (7 March 1997)Subject: Draft law authorizing the Luxembourg Government to build a road linking Luxembourg and EttelbruckThe Luxembourg Government has recently tabled a draft law authorizing the construction of a road linking Luxembourg and Ettelbruck.According to the plans, this road is to be built through a wooded area protected by a number of Government declarations and international instruments and through a valley covered by Annex I of the Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC ((OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. ))). However, Article 3 of the draft law stipulates that any laws or regulations which might preclude construction of the Luxembourg-Mersch section of the road shall not apply.To put it bluntly, the Luxembourg Government intends not to comply with its obligations under the Habitat Directive.Furthermore, Article 11 of the draft law stipulates that the Directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC ((OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40. ))) shall not apply to this project because its details will be adopted by a specific act of national legislation. In making use of this derogation the Luxembourg legislature is certifying to itself that its action complies with the Directive even though this is by no means the case.1. What steps will the Commission take in connection with the above breach of the Habitat Directive in the event that the draft law is adopted in its present form?2. With regard to the Directive on environmental impact assessment, does the Commission not consider a reform of Article 1(5) to be necessary in order to prevent abuse such as that which currently appears likely in Luxembourg?Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (11 April 1997)The intention by Luxembourg to build the 'Nordstrôss' and its environmental impact are being examined by the Commission in the light of the requirements set out in Directives 85/337/EEC (impact) and 92/43/EEC (habitats).As regards compliance of that project with the 'impact' Directive, the option of adopting that project in detail by means of a specific national legal instrument is indeed provided for by Article 1(5) of the Directive. That same provision, which was not amended during the recent amendment ((Council Directive 97/11/EC - OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. )) of the Directive, on which Parliament had the opportunity to state its views, is based on the notion that the legal procedure ensures that the aims of the Directive are met, more particularly as regards the making available of information. In February 1997 close details on that specific legal instrument were requested from the Luxembourg authorities.It may be said as regards the matter of the possible failure to comply with the 'habitats' Directive that the Commission is currently examining the items of information already passed on by the Luxembourg authorities, and in particular the detailed impact study carried out in September 1996, which is stated to contain recent data on the significance of the Grünewald massif in terms of flora and fauna. They have been informed of the Luxembourg Government's decision, in this connection, to implement a package of environmental measures that include, among others, a substantial lengthening of a tunnel and the building of two passages for animals enabling the bisection of the Grünewald to be limited and made good, the forest losses to be compensated for in quantitative terms (roughly 33 hectares) and in qualitative terms, and the wetland in the Alzette Valley to be returned to nature.