WRITTEN QUESTION P-1645/99 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compliance with the wild birds directive ‐ sludge dump off Uitdam (Netherlands).
Date: 1999-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Netherlands, dredging, environmental protection, protected area, waste, waste disposal, wildlife

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/61

(2000/C 170 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1645/99

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 September 1999)

Subject: Compliance with the wild birds directive (cid:129) sludge dump off Uitdam (Netherlands)

Is the Commission aware that the province of North Holland and the Ministry of Public Works are
intending to create a dump for toxic dredger sludge in the Ijmeer off Uitdam?

Is the Commission aware that the Ijmeer is a core area within the network of protected areas?

Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands government intends to designate the Ijmeer (cid:129) as part of the
Ijsselmeer (cid:129) a special protection zone in the context of Natura 2000?

Is the Commission aware that creating a dredge dump (with a diameter of 1 500 m) at this location
violates the European wild birds directive (79/409EEC (1)), given the risk of a leak affecting the natural
environment and threatening the natural habitat of well-known breeding birds and non-breeding birds
such as the osprey, Bewick(cid:146)s swan and spoonbill?

Is the Commission prepared to call on the Netherlands government to induce the province of North
Holland and the Ministry of Public Works to abandon this plan?

Does the Commission take the view that sustainable alternatives to the removal of dredged spoils (class 4)
have been developed and will be able to compete with dumping in the near future?

Is the Commission prepared to promote, directly or indirectly, the further development of alternatives,
such as converting dredging waste to building materials and secondary materials?

What action does the Commission intend to take to oblige the Netherlands to comply in full with the wild
birds directive and Natura 2000?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

The Commission is not aware of the facts raised by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is not aware that the Ijmeer is a core area within the network of protected areas.
However, this does not concern Community law. Community law is only concerned if the Ijmeer meets
the criteria set out in Council Directive 79/0409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds or
Council Directive 92/0043/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora
and fauna (1).

The Commission is aware that the Ijmeer is an important bird area (IBA). The Court of justice pointed out
in its judgement of 19 May 1998 that IBA 1994 can be used as a guideline for the designation of special
protection areas under Directive 79/0409/EEC. Moreover, the Court declared that the Netherlands has
failed to designate a sufficient number of the most suitable areas. The Netherlands still fails to fulfil its
obligations. This is the subject of a new infringement procedure on the basis of Article 228 (ex article 171)
of the EC Treaty. Recently the Netherlands stated that the designation of the areas will take place towards
the end of this year. The Ijmeer is also mentioned in the Dutch proposal for the designation of areas
pursuant to Directive 79/0409/EEC. This proposal has been submitted to a public hearing procedure
which continues.

Pursuant to Article 7 of Directive 92/0043/EEC Article 6(3) and Article 6(4) of that directive apply to an
area that falls under Directive 79/0409/EEC. Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on an
area shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the area and may not adversely

C 170 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

affect the integrity of the area. If a plan or project has such an effect, it can only be allowed if the
authorities demonstrate that there are no alternative solutions and that the plan or project has to be
carried out
they have to take all
compensatory measures that are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is
protected. Because the Commission has not received any information about the project, it can not affirm
that the effects mentioned in the question will take place.

for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

In addition,

The Commission will ask the Netherlands for information about the project (cid:129) in particular about the
compliance with Articles 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 92/0043/EEC. Furthermore, the Commission will insist
on the compliance by the Dutch authorities with Directive 79/0409/EEC as well as Directive 92/0043/EEC.

Alternatives for the removal of dredging sludge have to be judged in the procedure pursuant to Article 6(3)
and Article 6(4) of Directive 92/0043/EEC (see above).

The Commission started infringement proceedings to get the Netherlands to notify the areas that have to
be proposed under Directive 92/0043/EEC. The Netherlands notified the areas recently. At the moment,
this notification is under assessment in the framework of the biogeographical meetings of the Atlantic
Region.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 170 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/99

by Benedetto Della Vedova (TDI) to the Commission

(22 September 1999)

Subject: ENEL(cid:146)s acquisition of a 30 % holding in Telepiø

ENEL is a public company and the recent liberalisation measures in the electricity sector in Italy have not
in practice affected its role as a monopoly (in any case, the law assigns to ENEL a share of the domestic
consumption market ). The corporation has announced its intention to acquire 30 % of the capital of the
Franco-Italian pay-TV network Telepiø.

Does the Commission not consider that the investment of approximately 1 000 billion lire in the Franco-
Italian group Telepiø-Canal Plus constitutes a distortion of competition on the European pay-TV market?
In particular, does it not consider, given the public status of ENEL and its monopoly position in the energy
sector, that the purchase of 30 % of the capital of that company may be seen as improper State aid,
incompatible with Article 87 of the Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 1999)

The Commission(cid:146)s policy in a sector characterised by rapid technological innovation, such as pay-TV, is to
encourage the emergence of several competing operators to prevent monopolies being created, provided
there is sufficient demand on the market in question. The Commission welcomes the fact that two
competitors are operating in this sector in Italy and is following with interest operations designed to
accelerate the digital revolution and to consolidate multimedia and interactive services.

The fact that a public company like ENEL has acquired a stake in the capital of a private company in the
pay-TV sector does not in itself constitute a distortion of competition on that market.

As regards the possibility that the operation may comprise state aid within the meaning of Article 87
(former Article 92), under the EC Treaty rules on state aid public undertakings may use their own
resources for acquisitions, provided the expected return on the investment is comparable with that which a