WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Priority of international law over an EU directive and national environmental laws.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, environmental law, international law, international law - national law, primacy of the law, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, rail transport, wildlife

C 113 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

for a total value of ECU 605 000, with Italy and France also registering large quantities. Denmark claims
only minimal imports and exports, whereas Greece registers large exports to Denmark and Italy large
imports from Denmark.

1.

Has the Commission examined these statistics?

2.
Has the Commission requested further information from the Member States on these worrying
statistics which are unlikely to be entirely due to presumed miscoding, as suggested in its previous reply?

Does the Commission agree that these statistics may show a failure of certain Member States to

3.
comply with Article 1(1) of the Seals Directive?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this situation?

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 150.
(2) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

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

(19 June 2000)

The Commission agrees that the question of continued alleged infringements of Community legislation
mentioning imports and exports in Member States of seal pup products, as suggested by Eurostat statistics,
deserves to be clarified.

Consequently it undertakes to follow this matter up with Member States where necessary and will inform
the Honourable Member of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2001/C 113 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive and national environmental laws

The Commission states that a study on the environmental impact of the Iron Rhine is needed since (cid:145)the
Dutch section of the route passes through areas which are environmentally sensitive and are covered by
the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and wild fauna and flora(cid:146) (E-0525/00) (2).

With this answer the Commission implies that the international treaties on the Iron Rhine to which
Question E-2381/99 (3) refers are subordinate to the Habitats Directive and to Dutch environmental laws.
However, the Treaty of Vienna clearly states that international law takes precedence over national law.
Moreover, one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty is Russia, which is
not a Member State.

international

In its answer to Question E-2381/99 the Commission took the view that (cid:145)the question about the order of
importance of
in this case, since the
application of the Community law will not necessarily obstruct the application of the treaties(cid:146). In view of
its position in E-0525/00, legal clarity must be created as soon as possible on whether or not the Habitats
Directive and Netherlands environmental laws are subordinate to the international treaties referred to in
E-2381/99.

legislation is not relevant

treaties and national

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/37

Are the Habitats Directive and the Netherlands environmental laws derived from it subordinate to the
international treaties referred to in E-2381/99, in view of the fact that (a) one of the contracting parties to
the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty is the non-member State Russia, and (b) the Treaty of Vienna
expressly states that international law takes precedence over national law? If not, what are the Commis-
sion(cid:146)s grounds for arguing that the Habitats Directive and Netherlands environmental laws take precedence
over international law?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 58.
(3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35.

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

(20 July 2000)

In reply to Written question E-2381/99 from Mr Staes (1) the Commission has already stated that it is not
for it to judge the effects of the Treaties to which the Honourable Member refers. It also said that it is for
the Member States concerned to assess and determine the future use of the Iron Rhine railway line.

The Commission has to ensure that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the
institutions pursuant thereto are applied. If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to
fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty it may take measures pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169)
thereof. The Commission does not have such a role concerning other treaties to which Member States are
party.

As a result of Written question P-1875/99 from Mr de Roo (2) the Commission has asked the Netherlands
for information about the application, with respect to the re-opening of the Iron Rhine, of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (4). The
Netherlands has not yet replied.

Should the Netherlands(cid:146) answer reveal any grounds of non-compliance with Community law,
the
Commission will not hesitate to take all necessary measures to ensure the full respect of Community law.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35.
(2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 113.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 113 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1685/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Clean-up following (cid:145)tourism scandal(cid:146)

During the summer of 1994, a Greek national was dismissed from DG23 in strict secrecy because he had
been accused of taking bribes in connection with various tourist projects in France and Greece. The Greek
national was held in custody in Belgium for 13 months but was then released.

The most recent information in the case dates from May 1998; no legal proceedings had yet been initiated
at that point. Newspaper reports in Sweden claim that the senior officials with responsibility during the
tourism scandal in early 1999 have escaped prison sentences.

Has the new Commission examined this case and taken action to clean up its departments following these
(cid:145)tourism scandals(cid:146)? Has the official in question been convicted?