WRITTEN QUESTION P-0910/00 by Margot Keßler (PSE) to the Commission. Aachen-Heerlen cross-border industrial estate.
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, competence of the Member States, duties of civil servants, environmental protection, frontier region, industrial region, infringement of EU law, interest group, professional ethics, regional planning, scientific report

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/129

Furthermore, the answer mentions practices which are common in 3 out of the 15 Member States of the
European Union. Whilst the description of the situation in these 3 countries may be true, this does not
mean that in many other cases the situation is not different.

In particular the situation described does not apply to the Autonomous Region of the Azores. In view of
the fact that European Union regulations apply throughout EU territory and that no exemption is
envisaged for any geographical area, does the Commission not consider that it is incomprehensible that
the CAP should encourage the castration of bovine animals, thereby promoting the suffering of animals for
no valid reason?

When does the Commission intend to propose the revision of Regulation No 1254/1999 (2), so as to stop
encouraging cruelty to bovine animals?

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 134.
(2) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2000)

The Commission asks the Honourable Member also to refer to its reply to Written Question E-0876/00 (1)
on the same topic.

While common agricultural policy schemes take account of traditional farming practices, the Commission
gives due consideration to questions of animal welfare. Available information gives no grounds, however,
for proposing the regulatory change desired by the Honourable Member.

(1) See page 125.

(2001/C 26 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0910/00

by Margot Ke(cid:223)ler (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Aachen-Heerlen cross-border industrial estate

The Avantis cross-border industrial estate between the cities of Aachen and Heerlen on the German-Dutch
border has been recognised and supported by the EU as a European model project. Work on its
construction began in September 1998, and € 30 million has been spent on it. In the meanwhile, various
legal proceedings against the industrial estate are pending, both in the Netherlands and in the Federal
Republic of Germany. Moreover, a petition on this subject has been lodged with the European Parliament
(no 685/96).

The party which has brought the legal proceedings, as well as taking the initiative politically and lodging
the petition, against the Avantis cross-border industrial estate is the Nature Conservation Association of
Germany (cid:129) NABU, Stadtverband Aachen.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1.

2.

Is it true that, in accordance with German law on nature conservation, NABU was involved in the
planning procedure as a recognised nature conservation association and should therefore be regarded
as a party to the procedure?

Is it true that the official responsible for administration of the Avantis project at DG XI D 02, Oliver
Schall, is also a member of NABU, and does not the Commission regard this as:

(a)

in case of bias,

(b)

incompatible with the guidelines on transparency adopted by the Commission?

C 26 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

3.

Is it true that DG XI D 02 has commissioned an expert opinion on environmental issues relating to
the Avantis industrial estate, and that:

(a)

(b)

the expert who is to deliver it was given the assignment at the proposal of the above official,

the expert, who is regarded as objective, Professor Stubbe of Halle, is himself a member of NABU,
and has he made this clear?

4. Does the Commission agree that for an objection by NABU to be dealt with by a member of NABU
and assessed in the light of an expert opinion delivered by a member of NABU, who has been given
the proposal of a member of NABU, does not constitute an impartial and
the assignment at
transparent procedure?

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

(18 April 2000)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s first question relates to German law. The Commission does not have the

1.
authority to answer it.

2.
The Commission would recall that all European citizens have the fundamental right to join any
association or to belong to any religion of their choice. That freedom also applies to European officials,
inasmuch as the rules of the Staff Regulations for officials of the European Communities guarantee that
they perform their duties impartially, independently, objectively and competently. The Commission there-
fore does not have to know to which organisations its officials belong. The Commission would stress that
its decisions are the result of a collective assessment involving several departments and hierarchical levels.
It therefore has no reason to doubt the integrity and impartiality of the official referred to by the
Honourable Member.

3.
In choosing an expert to formulate a scientific opinion on the Avantis case, the Commission sought
a person who had recognised expertise on hamsters, was a university professor, had an excellent
knowledge of German and/or Dutch, and was not involved in the regional debate surrounding the Avantis
project. The Commission chose Professor Stubbe on the basis of these four criteria, which are reflected in
the study contract referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission will question the professor about any activities within the NABU. It believes a large
number of professors of biology and ecology are members of the principal nature conservation associa-
tions in their respective Member States.

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, in view of the freedom of European
4.
citizens to join the associations of their choice and given the internal procedures for the control and
assessment of the information which it receives, the Commission does not believe that there was any
conflict of interest in the procedure for the study of the Avantis case.

The Commission has not yet considered Professor Stubbe(cid:146)s report. It has not adopted a position on the
complaint concerned and has not considered which points it feels should be taken into consideration.

(2001/C 26 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0913/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Potentially dangerous developments on French farms

Since 1994 the French agriculture ministry has been making considerable efforts to harmonise agricultural
installations (livestock housing, slurry pits etc.). These installations are built to low-level specifications and
are of inadequate quality, and have the potential to cause considerable environmental damage. In the
foreseeable future these structures, which can no longer be restored, are in danger of collapsing. They are