WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3412/98 by Roberta ANGELILLI to the Commission. Building development in Bufalotta
Date: 1998-11-17
Institutions: ANGELILLI, European Parliament
Subjects: archaeology, dividing up of land, environmental impact, infringement of EU law, population density, project evaluation, shopping centre

21.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 207/65

The Commission is not in a position to comment on what employment opportunities may be available for
individuals.

(1) Article 119 of the EC Treaty, Directive 79/7/EEC (OJ L 6, 10.1.1979) and Directive 86/378/EEC (OJ L 225, 12.8.1986)

which was amended by Directive 96/97/EC (OJ L 46, 17.2.1997).

(2) Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, updated by Regulation (EC) 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(1999/C 207/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3412/98

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Building development in Bufalotta

The municipal council in Rome has approved a large development in the Bufalotta district that involves the
construction of buildings and commercial centres (requiring 2 million cubic meters of concrete) in a densely
populated are where the ratio of open space to inhabitants is the lowest in the city and living conditions are
particularly difficult.

As the construction of a large commercial centre will distort the local economy to the detriment of small and
medium-sized businesses, and in view of the presence of various sites of archaeological interest, does the
Commission agree that the proposed development infringes:

1. Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on environmental impact assessment and public consultation?

2.

3.

the EU’s declarations on the protection of archaeological sites, particularly Annex 3 of Directive 97/11/
EEC (2)?

the requirements for acceptable living conditions in a district which is already densely populated and
would be considerably more so?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 1999)

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, it is not
possible to presume that the works to which she refers can be considered covered by Directive 85/337/EEC.

Annex II letter 10(b) includes urban-development projects. Article 4, paragraph 2, states that classes of projects
listed in Annex II should be made subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA) where Member States
consider that their characteristics so require and that, to this end, Member States may establish the criteria or
thresholds necessary to determine which of the projects of the classes listed in Annex II are to be subject to an
assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10 of the directive. Italy approved on 12 April 1996, a decree
(D.P.R. Atto di indirizzo e coordinamento concernente disposizioni in materia di valutazione di impatto
ambientale) which, in line with Article 4, paragraph 2, established such criteria and thresholds for classes of
projects listed in Annex II. Urban development projects are listed at number 7 (b) of Annex B of this decree.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, it is not possible to verify whether the
project mentioned could be considered as covered by Annex II letter 10(b) of the directive as specified by
Annex B letter 7(b) of the Italian decree.

1.
Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to assess whether the project mentioned could be
considered as a possible infringement of Directive 85/337/EEC. Concerning the public consultation, if the
project is not covered by the directive, there would not be any possible infringement of the obligation of public
consultation. However, the Honourable Member does not mention any lack of consultation of the public.
Consequently, in any event, the Commission is not in a position to assess any possible infringement of the rule
establishing the obligation of public consultation for projects covered by the directive.

2. Member States have until 14 March 1999 to implement Directive 97/11/EC.

The Commission is not in a position to identify which provision of Community law is at stake in the

3.
specific case.