WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Priority of international law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties concerning the Iron Rhine.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Council of the European Union, EC Directive, Netherlands, application of the law, bilateral agreement, rail transport

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/35

(2000/C 280 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Priority of international

law over an EU directive, and compliance with provisions of treaties

concerning the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146)

The increase in the budget for trans-European networks confirms their importance for the European
Union. Both the construction of new transport infrastructure and the modernisation of existing infra-
structure are eligible for co-financing. The question of the Iron Rhine is a matter which is particularly
deserving of the Commission(cid:146)s attention in this respect. By virtue of Article 12 of the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 and
13 January 1873 deriving therefrom (the (cid:145)Iron Rhine Treaty(cid:146)), Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch
district of Sittard to the German frontier. This international right of transit assumed physical shape
between 1869 and 1879 with the construction of the first cross-border rail link in Europe. However, after
the two world wars the Iron Rhine between Antwerp and the Ruhr in Germany fell into disuse. The Dutch
authorities are currently using national legislation to put obstacles in the way of resuming this interna-
tional rail link.

Does the Commission acknowledge that by virtue of Article 12 of

the Belgium-Netherlands
1.
Arbitration Treaty (19 April 1839), and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of 5 November 1842 ands
13 January 1873 deriving therefrom, Belgium is entitled to a link via the Dutch district of Sittard to the
German frontier?

Is Dutch environmental

2.
legislation pursuant to the habitats directive subordinate to the above-
mentioned international agreements, given that one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands
Arbitration Treaty (Russia) is not an EU Member State? (N.B.: The Treaty of Vienna explicitly stipulates that
international law takes precedence over national law.)

3.
In the light of the answers to questions 1 and 2, will the Commission call on the Dutch authorities to
comply with their obligations under the treaties, particularly as completion of the Iron Rhine is covered by
the general principle of loyalty to the Community? If not, why not?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2000)

1.
The Belgium-Netherlands arbitration treaty (19 April 1839) and the Belgium-Netherlands treaties of
5 November 1842 and 13 January 1873 deriving therefrom are bilateral agreements between two Member
States. As long as these bilateral agreements are not violating Community law it is not for the Commission
to judge their effects. According to the subsidiarity principle, it is for the Member States concerned to
assess and determine the future use of the Iron Rhine railway line.

2.
The Commission is not informed in detail about the contents of the Treaties mentioned above. As far
as the Commission knows the Treaties concern a right of way through a certain area (the Sittard canton in
the Netherlands) but do not specify the precise location of the railway track inside this area. This means
that both Member States will have to agree by their respective procedures on the manner in which the
right of way is made effective. Consequently, the Commission sees no obstacle in advance for the
application of the relevant Community law concerning the re-opening of the Iron Rhine railway line by
the Dutch authorities if this would mean that an alternative route through the Sittard canton must be
adopted. As a result of this, the question about the order of importance of international treaties and
national
legislation is not relevant in this case, since the application of the Community law will not
necessarily obstruct the application of the treaties.

3.
It is not for the Commission to direct the Dutch government to implement any non-Community
treaty obligation it may have entered into. But the government of the Netherlands has declared that,
because the old line runs through a special area of conservation in the sense of Council Directive 79/409/

C 280 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1), Article 6 (3) and (4) of Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (2) have to be
applied. This means that all the specific requirements of those provisions have to be met. One of the
requirements in Article 6 (4) is that a plan or project can only be carried out in the absence of alternative
solutions. This requirement may lead to the adoption of an alternative route in stead of a re-opening of the
Iron Rhine railway line.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 280 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2382/99

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Impact on Southern Africa of the trade, development and cooperation agreement with South

Africa

The trade, development and cooperation agreement between the European Union and the Republic of
South Africa has recently been approved. It provides for free access to the South African market for 86 %
of EU products, while the 15 EU Member States will grant free access to 95 % of South African products.
Given that South Africa is a member of two regional pacts, this will also have an impact on other
countries in the region.

South Africa is in a customs union with Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. These five countries
are not allowed to levy tariffs at their common frontiers. Accordingly, EU products will be bought and sold
(cid:129) via South Africa (cid:129) tariff-free, even though Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland are heavily
dependent on customs tariffs for their revenue. In addition, South Africa is negotiating liberalisation of
trade with the ten other members of the SADC. Until an agreement is reached, businesses in the SADC
countries will find it harder than their EU competitors to gain access to the South African market.

On 22 September 1998 Commissioner Pinheiro said in answer to written question E-2287/98 (1) by
Mr Jaak Vandemeulebroucke that (cid:145)the Commission expects that the envisaged agreement will have a
positive dynamic economic effect on both South Africa and the other countries in the region(cid:146).

How much revenue did Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland derive from the collection of

1.
customs duties in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999?

2. What is the estimated revenue from customs duty levied on EU products imported into Botswana,
Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland in 2000 and 2001?

3. What indicators suggest that the agreement will have (cid:145)a positive dynamic economic effect(cid:146) on
Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland?

4. What indicators point to the agreement having (cid:145)a positive dynamic economic effect(cid:146) on the other
SADC countries?

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 51.