WRITTEN QUESTION E-2990/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Habitats Directive 92/43 EEC.
Date: 2000-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, biotope, directive (EU), infringement of EU law, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

C 151 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Projects included in the framework programme agreements between the region of Sicily and the Italian
government can be proposed for part-funding from the Structural Funds under these two programmes.

(2001/C 151 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2990/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Habitats Directive 92/43 EEC

Since the expiry of the deadline for its transposition into national law, is Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on
1.
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora directly applicable where it has not been
properly transposed?

Is the protection scheme pursuant to Article 6 of the Directive already applicable to the areas

2.
referred to in the national lists?

How many sets of proceedings for treaty violations have been initiated against Austria in connection

3.
with this Directive, and how many have already been dropped?

4.

To which projects and areas did these relate?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

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

(23 November 2000)

1.
The Court of justice has developed in its case law the doctrine of direct effect of Community
provisions, according to which a provision of a directive might be directly applicable under the following
conditions: expiry of the transposition date; absence of transposition by the Member State concerned;
unconditional character of the provision (the legal consequence follows directly from the provision without
an intermediate act); the provision is sufficiently precise (the content, e.g. rights or obligations, deriving
it confers on individuals some rights (i.e. favourable
from the provision are unambiguous and clear);
position with regard to public authorities). It follows moreover from Articles 10 and 249 (ex Articles 5
and 189) of the EC Treaty that Community legal provisions have supremacy over national provisions,
whether these national provisions came into effect before or after Community law. Therefore national,
regional or local courts and administrative authorities have to give priority to the Community provision in
the event of a conflict of rules. They have to interpret national law in a way which best ensures that the
Community provision is effective and, where the Community provision is of direct effect, to set aside the
contradicting national rule and apply the Community provision alone.

According to Article 4 (5) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats
2.
and of wild fauna and flora (1) a site shall be subject to Article 6 (2), (3) and (4) as soon as it is placed on
the list under third subparagraph of paragraph 2. The Commission published an interpretation guideline
on the provisions of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC in April 2000. It is accessible under (cid:145)http://
europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/legis.htm(cid:146). There in chapter 1.4.2.
(cid:145)Sites based on Directive 92/
43/EEC(cid:146), some useful information can be found. The chapter summarises with regard to sites in national
lists as follows:
(cid:145)As regards sites based on Directive 92/43/EEC, it can be argued that Member States,
particularly after the date for adoption of the Community list expired on 10 June 1998, have certain
obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the
absence of a Community list, Member States are therefore advised to at least abstain from all activities that
may cause a site on the national list to deteriorate.(cid:146)

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/37

27 cases (complaints plus others) have been registered altogether under Directive 92/43/EEC
3. and 4.
concerning Austria, of which 15 cases are still pending at the Commission (12 been closed so far).
Infringement procedures have been opened in two of them, none of which is site related.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 151 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2994/00

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(25 September 2000)

Subject: East Timor

Is the Council aware of the incomplete nature of the list of suspects issued by the Indonesian attorney
general(cid:146)s office in relation to last year(cid:146)s massacres?

How does the Council intend to ensure that these men are brought to justice and that they do not evade
prosecution through the medium of recent constitutional amendments which will most
likely bar
prosecutors from charging suspects with international crimes such as war crimes and crimes against
humanity?

Reply

(22 December 2000)

The European Union has stated on various occasions that the perpetrators of violations of human rights in
East Timor should be accountable for their acts and that that would be the best means of promoting
democratic stability in Indonesia and a lasting reconciliation in East Timor.

The Council has been informed that the attorney-general(cid:146)s office of the Indonesian Republic has added new
names to the initial list of suspects involved in the atrocities committed in East Timor in 1999. In mid-
October of this year, the Troika, acting on behalf of the Council as part of the representations made to the
Indonesian authorities, pointed out to them the need to arrest those who have committed acts of violence
and to bring them to justice.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of its declaration of 4 February 2000 in which it
stressed the fact that the international community, through the United Nations system, has a responsibility
to ensure that gross violations of human rights and of humanitarian law in East Timor are investigated and
that the perpetrators are brought to justice. It would also point out that the Untaet has initiated an
autonomous process of identification of and of criminal proceedings against those responsible following
institutional cooperation arrangements with the attorney-general(cid:146)s office of the
the establishment of
Indonesian Republic.

The Council will continue to follow further developments in the situation attentively.

(2001/C 151 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/00

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 September 2000)

Subject: Common standards for tunnels in the European Union

The recent accidents in the Mont Blanc road tunnel between Italy and France and the Tauern tunnel in
Austria have raised at European level the delicate issue of safety standards and prevention measures in the
various types of tunnel in operation, but the legislation in each country appears to be different and non-
uniform.