WRITTEN QUESTION No. 437/99 by Brigitte LANGENHAGEN Interpretation and implementation of Directive 92/42/EEC
Date: 1999-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, LANGENHAGEN
Subjects: ecology, environmental impact, environmental protection, project evaluation, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, rail transport, transport infrastructure

29.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 341/113

In its opinion 2/91 of 19 March 1993, the Court of Justice considered that ‘the conclusion of ILO Convention
No 170 is a matter which falls within the joint competence of the Member States and the Community’. The
Court also ruled out the possibility of exclusive external competence being founded on internal rules
constituting minimum standards (which is generally the case for the Directives relating to asbestos), at least
when the international standard covering the same matter is also a minimum requirement (like, for example,
Conventions Nos 162 and 170).

The Court also emphasised that ‘when it appears that the subject-matter of an agreement or contract falls in
part within the competence of the Community and in part within that of the Member States, it is important to
ensure that there is a close association between the institutions of the Community and the Member States both
in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the obligations entered into’.

Drawing the appropriate lessons from this opinion, on 12 January 1994 the Commission presented a proposal
for a Council Decision (1) on the exercise of the Community’s external competence at international labour
conferences in cases falling within the joint competence of the Community and its Member States.

Certain Member States have ratified ILO conventions on matters coming under joint competence (five so far in
the case of Convention No 162). The Council has not adopted the Commission’s proposal, which has not been
discussed. The Commission still wishes to find an effective solution within the framework of the Court of
Justice’s opinion.

(1) COM(94) 2 final.

(1999/C 341/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0437/99

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission

(4 March 1999)

Subject: Interpretation and implementation of Directive 92/42/EEC

Which criteria or preconditions determine whether the ‘considerations relating to consequences of primary
importance for the environment’ within the meaning of Article 6(4), second subparagraph, of Directive 92/43/
EEC (1) apply to a given rail transport project?

This question follows on from my Question of 25 July 1998 which Mrs Bjerregaard answered on behalf of the
Commission (E-2638/98) (2). However, she failed to provide an answer to the above question or rather
prompted it in the first place.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 110.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

In its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question 2638/98, the Commission has already given its
view, and explained that the question of ‘beneficial consequences of primary importance to the environment’
can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. There are no general formulae or criteria additional to those
already set out in Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and
the general environmental advantages of trains over other forms of transport cannot displace the need for
project and site specific analysis.

Only the Court of justice can give a definitive interpretation of the Directive, and the Commission regrets that
it cannot give more guidance to the Honourable Member than that contained in its previous answer.