WRITTEN QUESTION E-4110/00 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Road improvement project being undertaken without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in a wetland area in Brandenburg.
Date: 2001-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, environmental impact, impact study, protected area, road building

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/69

The mother tongue criterion infringes the principle of non-discrimination in the recruitment of staff in
European Union countries. Non-English speakers are tending to be excluded from selection procedures,
even if they have a more than adequate command of the English language. Speakers of other languages are
clearly no longer being considered for certain jobs, and this is happening on the eve of the European Year
of Languages.

Does the Council agree that requiring (cid:145)native English-speakers(cid:146) when recruiting staff in European Union
countries is a violation of the principle of non-discrimination? If it does, what steps will it be taking to put
a stop to linguistic discrimination of this kind? If it doesn(cid:146)t, what arguments can it put forward to reconcile
this requirement with the non-discrimination principle?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council remains attached to the fundamental principle of equality of the official languages of the EU,
as enshrined in Council Regulation No 1 (1) (last modified by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden)
and applies this principle, as do the other institutions of the Union, in its own recruitment policy. It has
no competence to pronounce on the recruitment policies of organisations and bodies.

(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 401.

(2001/C 235 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4101/00

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

(10 January 2001)

Subject: The EIB and the ¯rhus Convention

Does the Council consider that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is covered by the obligations contained
in the ¯rhus Convention?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that his question is not a matter for the Council.

(2001/C 235 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4110/00

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Road improvement project being undertaken without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in

a wetland area in Brandenburg

The improvement of main road 189 between Retzin and Rohlsdorf in Brandenburg (Germany) is being
carried out under the Brandenburg Land road construction law. I consider that the criteria set out in
Annex III section 2, according to which an EIA is essential, have not been implemented in line with EU
legislation. The section of road concerned crosses a wetland area which is extremely vulnerable and
valuable in ecological terms and has plant communities which should be protected. The groundwater is
only two metres below the surface and is extremely vulnerable to discharges of pollutants.

C 235 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Does the Commission consider that EU environmental legislation will be correctly applied only if an

1.
EIA is carried out for this road improvement project?

2.
Does the Commission consider that a plan approval procedure for this section of road is the
appropriate way to make a comprehensive survey of the sensitivity of the area, to provide a full assessment
of the environmental effects of the road improvement project and to assess the road construction
department(cid:146)s plans adequately in terms of the impact on the sensitive wetland area?

Does the Commission consider that the Brandenburg road construction law has correctly and fully

3.
transposed the amendment of the EIA directive 97/11/EC, in particular Annex III section 2?

Does the Commission consider that the Brandenburg government must be asked to amend the road

4.
construction law?

If so, when will it do so?

If not, why not?

Does the Commission consider that,

5.
government should examine road construction projects through sensitive natural areas more carefully?

irrespective of directive 97/11/EC on EIA, the Brandenburg

Has the Commission examined whether European aid funds are being used directly or indirectly for

6.
this road construction project?

If so, what steps will it take?

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

(6 March 2001)

The extension of Federal Road B 189 could be either covered by Annex I.7(b) (1) or (c) or by Annex
II.10.(e) (2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (3) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (4) (in the
following: Environmental impact assessment (EIA) Directive). Without the necessary information about the
current project it appears impossible to assess whether it must be subject to an environmental impact
assessment pursuant to the EIA Directive.

It is not completely clear to the Commission what the Honourable Member means by Question No 2
(whether a plan approval procedure is an appropriate instrument in general or whether in the current case
it is appropriate). It is in any event, according to Article 2(2) of the EIA Directive, up to the Member States
to choose an appropriate procedure to carry out an environmental impact assessment in line with the aims
of this Directive.

Annex III(2) of the EIA Directive lists inter alia in (d) (cid:145)nature reserves and forest parks(cid:146),
in (e) (cid:145)areas
classified or protected under Member States(cid:146) legislation; special protection areas designated by Member
States pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (5), and
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (6)(cid:146) and in (h) (cid:145)landscapes of historical, cultural and archaeological significance(cid:146).

Germany notified the Commission of the (cid:145)Gesetz- und Verordnungssblatt f(cid:252)r das Land Brandenburg Teil I
(cid:129) Nr. 12 vom 28. Juli 1999(cid:146) as the measure transposing Directive 97/11/EC as far as road construction in
the Land Brandenburg is concerned. This Brandenburg law is apparently meant to transpose Annex I.7(b)
and (c) EIA Directive in its Article 38(3)1. and 2. and Annex II.10(e) EIA Directive in its Article 38(3)3. As
regards projects falling under Annex II, the Land Brandenburg has therefore apparently chosen to apply
the option provided by Article 4(2)(b) of the EIA Directive. Therefore Brandenburg had to take into
account the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III in setting the thresholds or criteria for road
construction projects falling under Annex II in Brandenburg.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/71

Whether Brandenburg has completely taken into account the relevant selection criteria in Annex III in its
transposing legislation, in particular in Article 38(3)3. of the aforementioned legislation has not yet been
assessed by the Commission since Germany has so far notified the Commission of only two small pieces of
legislation as transposing measures to Directive 97/11/EC (one of which is the afore mentioned Branden-
burg law) and a complete conformity assessment will be carried out by the Commission once the
It seems
notification by Germany of the transposition concerning Directive 97/11/EC is completed.
however that not all relevant selection criteria of Annex III might be reflected by the thresholds or criteria
set in Article 38(3)3 in the said Brandenburg law.

In any event, as the Court of Justice has held in its jurisprudence, as far as the application of thresholds are
concerned, that (cid:145)although the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the Directive confers on Member
States a measure of discretion to specify certain types of projects which are to be subject to an assessment
or to establish the criteria or thresholds applicable, the limits of that discretion lie in the obligation set out
in Article 2(1) that projects likely, by virtue inter alia of their nature, size or location, to have significant
effects on the environment are to be subject to an impact assessment(cid:146) (Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld, paragraph
50, C-392/96 Commision v. Ireland, paragraph 64).

The Commission has no jurisdiction to answer the Honourable Member(cid:146)s fifth question.

According to the available information, Community aid funds are not being used for this road construction
project.

(1) Annex I.7(b) and (c) EIA Directive lists the construction of motorways and express roads as well as the construction
of a new road of four or more lanes, or realignment and/or widening of an existing road of two lanes or less so as
to provide four or more lanes, where such new road, or realigned and/or widened section of road would be 10 km
or more in a continuous length.

(2) Annex II.10.(e) lists the construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects

not included in Annex I).

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(5) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(6) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 235 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4112/00

by Ioannis Theonas (GUE/NGL), Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL)
and Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Olympic Airways

Despite the three restructuring programmes implemented over the last decade and the recent announce-
ment of a change in the ownership status of the airline, Olympic Airways is facing a crisis.

In view of this, will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to seek solutions in collaboration with the Greek government which will not affect the

jobs and insurance and pension rights of employees?

2. What, in its view, is the reason for the failure of previous restructuring programmes?

3. Does it have any responsibility to follow up these programmes and identify shortcomings? If so, what

does this responsibility consist of?