WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/00 by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Asti-Cuneo motorway link.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, Italy, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, application of EU law, award of contract, environmental impact, impact study, motorway

C 81 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

From a practical point of view, the accession negotiations have been completed. Taiwan(cid:146)s trade commit-
ments for both goods and services are of the highest quality. The EU is also extremely pleased with the
positive outcome of its bilateral negotiations with the Taiwanese. They have made commitments which
more than satisfy the minimum criteria for admission to the WTO.

As part of the accession process, Taiwan and the Commission have also negotiated a bilateral agreement
on market access. The agreement was concluded in October 1998 and submitted to the WTO. Tariff
concessions will become (cid:145)multilateral(cid:146) on accession.

The EU has always been strongly in favour of Taiwan(cid:146)s early accession to the WTO. However, certain
political factors have played and continue to play an important role.

Now that China is also on the point of joining the WTO, Taiwan(cid:146)s accession is closer than ever.
The Commission expects that the WTO working party will soon adopt the report.

Nevertheless, the procedural arrangements for Taiwan(cid:146) Protocol of Accession still need to be finalised. Both
Chinese accessions are planned to take place consecutively at the same WTO General Council meeting, one
immediately following the other.

In any case, the Commission is sure that Taiwan(cid:146)s admission will go ahead relatively easily since WTO
accession does not raise questions of national sovereignty.

(2001/C 81 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Asti-Cuneo motorway link

On the grounds that the act was incompatible with the provisions of Directive 89/440/EEC (1), the deadline
for the transposition of which had already passed when the act was adopted, the Italian Council of State
declared unlawful the (cid:145)additional act(cid:146) of 1991 extending the concession granted to the firm SATAP to the
Asti-Cuneo section of the Turin-Piacenza motorway. Following this judgement the government announced
that SATAP(cid:146)s concession for the Asti-Cuneo section would probably be withdrawn.

With regard to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to Question P-1378/00 (2) on the issue of environmental impact
assessment, the modified motorway project cannot be considered an adequate response to the criticisms
levelled at the original project during the EIA procedure. In fact, the route of the second project was not
substantially modified (cid:129) only 2 km of an approximately 77 km stretch were revised and the route
continues to follow to a great extent the course of the River Stura, a torrential river subject to severe
flooding. Furthermore, the project was approved by the Italian cabinet in September 1994 without the
submission of justifying evidence (cid:129) the alleged technical findings of the Ministry for Public Works were in
fact never published (cid:129) and on the basis of the misguided technical opinion of an official in the secretariat
of the Ministry for the Environment, which was not consistent with the provisional unfavourable opinion
issued by the EIA ministerial committee in June 1994. This episode is being investigated by the Italian
Audit Commission. As requested by the Commission itself, the questioner is supplying information in an
annex to this question and would refer the Commission to the national highways authority ANAS
(via Monzambano 10, Rome) for details of the stretch of motorway under dispute.

Does the Commission intend to bring infringement proceedings against Italy, in the light of the recent
opinion of the Council of State, if the Italian State does not withdraw the concession from SATAP?

What steps will the Commission take to challenge the declaration by the Italian cabinet authorising the
construction of the motorway link despite the negative outcome of the EIA procedure?

How can a Member State be allowed to authorise the construction of public works ignoring the negative
outcome of the EIA procedure? Is such an act acceptable in the light of Community legislation on the
subject?

(1) OJ L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 218.

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/191

Answer by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2000)

The Commission has asked the Italian authorities for the information that is needed to assess the
compatibility with Community legislation on public contracts of the construction of the new Asti-Cuneo
section of motorway, as well as the extension of the concession to the SATAP company, as referred to by
the honourable Member.

It should be pointed out that, if when the information is considered it turns out that the procedures that
were followed are incompatible with the aforementioned Community law, the Commission could initiate
infringement proceedings as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty, regardless of the
opinion expressed by the Italian Council of State. It is worth mentioning, in fact, that the procedure in
question is autonomous in nature and cannot depend on procedures under national law.

(2001/C 81 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2361/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Subject: Participation by Community citizens in Belgian local elections

Town council elections are held in Belgium every six years. European Union citizens resident in Belgium
are entitled to vote if they are nationals of a Member State, are at least eighteen years old, live in a Belgian
commune and are on the Belgian electoral roll. However, not all Belgian local authorities use the same
methods to guarantee this right by means of inclusion on the local electoral rolls.

Some local authorities merely send Union citizens residing there the registration form needed for voting,
which must be completed by 31 July 2000.

Other local authorities issue invitations to information meetings, which Union citizens residing in the area
can attend if they are interested in voting. This procedure makes it more difficult for Community citizens
to be included on the electoral roll. There is a suspicion that these different procedures might be
determined by political considerations.

Can the Commission confirm that this behaviour constitutes an infringement of the Community law laying
down the conditions for the right to vote and stand for election in municipal elections for Community
citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals?

Can the Commission ensure that all citizens of the Member States of the Union residing in Belgium have
the same opportunities to exercise their right to vote and have equal access to the relevant information,
irrespective of which commune they live in?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Article 11 of Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994, laying down detailed arrangements for
the exercise of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of the Union
residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals (1) states that (cid:145)the Member State of residence
shall inform voters and persons entitled to stand as candidates within the scope of Article 3 in good time
and in an appropriate manner of the conditions and detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to
vote and to stand as a candidate in elections in that State(cid:146).