WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/00 by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Finland's Natura network.
Date: 2000-11-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, application of EU law, protection of animal life

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/183

(2001/C 151 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3497/00

by Raina Echerer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 November 2000)

Subject: Permission from EU governments for the operation of Temelin type nuclear reactors

The German Minister for the Environment has declared that under the current German law the Soviet-
designed plant Temelin in the Czech Republic would fail to pass the security tests for nuclear power
stations.

In fact, four similar Soviet-designed nuclear power plants in East Germany were closed down after the
unification of Germany.

Since there are not yet EU standards for nuclear safety, is the European Commission able to answer the
following question: would a nuclear reactor of the Temelin type by allowed to start to function in
Germany under German law, in France under French law, in the United Kingdom under British law, in
Spain under Spanish law, in Sweden under Swedish law, in Finland under Finnish law, in Belgium under
Belgian law and in the Netherlands under Dutch law?

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

(12 December 2000)

The reactor that has recently started operation in the Temel(cid:237)n nuclear power plant, and the second that is
being completed, are of the type VVER-1000, considered by the group of seven most industrialized nations
(G7) in 1992 as upgradeable to Western nuclear safety levels at a reasonable cost, and listed as such in
Agenda 2000. They are, therefore, quite different from the first four reactors in the Greifswald nuclear
power plant, which are of the type VVER 440/230, defined by the G7 and in Agenda 2000 as non-
upgradeable at a reasonable cost.

The regulatory system in each Member State has evolved during the last decades to guarantee a high level
of nuclear safety taking into consideration different nuclear regulatory cultures, but also different
technologies involved. The different regulatory regimes in the Member States all have in common the
assurance of a high level of nuclear safety. This is also what is asked from the candidate countries in the
accession process.

The responsibility for nuclear safety rests with the state having jurisdiction over a nuclear installation.
Therefore, the Czech nuclear regulatory authority is the only one which has the power to award or refuse
licences for the siting, construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of nuclear power
plants in the Czech Republic. It is important, in this context, to note that the Czech regulatory regime has
been recognised by international experts on nuclear safety, including an international regulatory review
team of the International atomic energy agency (IAEA) in February 2000, as being at a similar level to
those of the Member States.

(2001/C 151 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3506/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Finland(cid:146)s Natura network

The Commission brought a case against Finland in June. According to its submission, Finland(cid:146)s proposed
Natura network does not include enough conservation areas for birds. The Commission refers in its
submission to the work (cid:145)Important Bird Areas of Europe(cid:146) recently completed by BirdLife International, a
nature conservation organisation.

C 151 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Did the assessment drawn up during the IBA research project disregard the directive on birds when
assessing the adequacy of the Natura network?

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

(14 December 2000)

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) requires
Member States to classify in particular the most suitable territories in number and size as special protection
areas (SPAs) for the conservation of bird species mentioned in Annex I to the Directive, taking into
account their protection requirements in the geographical sea and land area where this Directive applies.

The Court of justice has confirmed that while the Member States have a certain margin of discretion in the
choice of SPAs, the classification of those areas is nevertheless subject to certain ornithological criteria
determined by the Directive (see Case C-355/90 Commission v Spain). It follows that the Member States(cid:146)
margin of discretion in choosing the most suitable territories for classification as SPAs does not concern
the appropriateness of classifying as SPAs the territories which appear the most suitable according to
ornithological criteria, but only the application of those criteria for identifying the most suitable territories
for conservation of the species listed in Annex I to the Directive. Consequently, Member States are obliged
to classify as SPAs all the sites which, applying ornithological criteria, appear to be the most suitable for
conservation of the species in question (case C-3/96 Commission v. Netherlands).

The Commission considers that the inventories on important bird areas, the latest of which was published
by BirdLife International in March 2000, serve as an important scientific reference in determining the
obligations of Member States in classifying SPAs under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2001/C 151 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3508/00

by Stefano Zappal(cid:224) (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 November 2000)

Subject: Circeo national park

Given that:

(cid:129) the Circeo national park was established by royal decree in the 1930s;

(cid:129) since that time no park authority has been set up and no regional development plan drawn up and

adopted;

(cid:129) the zone includes an area of outstanding environmental importance, including Roman archaeological

remains and lakes;

(cid:129) one of these lakes, lake Paola, is treated as private property, even though it is extensively subsidised by
the local authorities and is not given the necessary protection from private activities; nevertheless it
forms an integral part of the park and there should be public access to its waters;

(cid:129) the national legislation on the matter is confused and controversial and does nothing to clarify the

situation, even though the area is one of national and European interest;