WRITTEN QUESTION P-0190/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. European Court judgment against Ireland of 21 September 1999 ‐ Case C-392/96.
Date: 2001-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, acidification, afforestation, eutrophication, offence, pollution of waterways, soil pollution

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/59

Reply

(31 May 2001)

The Council remains seriously concerned about the political prisoners detained in Serbia, including the
approximately 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable Member, and has repeatedly pressed
the competent authorities for their release.

The Yugoslav Federal Government submitted to Parliament on 22 January a draft amnesty law, which is
presently under discussion. Its adoption is expected by the end of the month of February. The draft law
covers political prisoners, including part of the 700 Kosovo Albanians referred to by the Honourable
Member.

In the EU(cid:146)s view the initiative undertaken by the new Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) leadership,
while welcome, did not go far enough. Therefore, the European Union has been exercising strong pressure
on Belgrade, not least directly on President Kostunica during the recent visit of the EU Ministerial Troika
on 8 February. On that occasion, and during a previous visit to Stockholm, President Kostunica assured his
EU interlocutors that all the cases of those prisoners not covered by the amnesty law would be reviewed,
indicating, however, that this process could take two to three months. The European Union will certainly
continue to give this issue high priority in its relations with the authorities of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia.

(2001/C 261 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0190/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 January 2001)

Subject: European Court judgment against Ireland of 21 September 1999 (cid:129) Case C-392/96

Would the Commission assure this Member of the European Parliament that the proposals put forward by
the Irish authorities in response to the European Court judgment of 22 September 1999 will specifically
ensure that appropriate testing will take place before any further consent is given for afforestation or
reforestation in those areas of Ireland identified as acid-sensitive?

Extensive areas, particularly in the west and north-west, are characterised by rain-fed peat soils with high
concentrations of organic acids where the geology is unable to absorb the effects of the increasing acid
levels from afforestation. Other areas, particularly in the east, where catchments are dominated by quartz-
bearing bedrock, with a shallow, carbonate-free soil overburden, areas with sandy, siliceous soils, and
highly-weathered old leached soils are also vulnerable. Extensive Irish research over the last ten years has
demonstrated that the acidification in these catchments promotes dissolved organic matter and dissolved
aluminium which can occur in a toxic form, leading to a coating of mucus on the gills and extensive
mortality.

The streams most severely affected by afforestation in these areas lack acid-sensitive invertebrates and are
too acid to support self-sustaining populations of salmonoids, particularly as the research demonstrates
that acid episodes tend to occur in winter and spring, a particularly vulnerable period in the salmonoid
life-cycle. Sites with the most acid waters showed the lowest survival of salmon ova, and eggs developed
abnormally brittle shells during incubation. Mayflies are absent from most acid sites in forests and these
sites hold a lower diversity of invertebrates. Fish are entirely absent from sites otherwise suitable. All of
this has been demonstrated by Irish research and subject to repeated per-group review, yet afforestation

C 261 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

and reforestation continues unchecked in these areas as no assessment mechanism is in place. Will the
Commission ensure that an appropriate assessment mechanism is specifically included in any revised Irish
Environmental Impact Assessment procedure so as to protect these areas from this environmental damage?

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

(22 March 2001)

The Commission is aware of the issue of potentially significant impacts of afforestation projects on acid-
sensitive areas in Ireland. It was amongst the issues raised by the Commission in its pleadings to the Court,
and the Court specifically refers to it in paragraph 69 of its judgment, where it notes that afforestation
may cause the acidification or eutrophication of waters.

To date, Ireland has not communicated the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in relation to
afforestation projects, and the Commission has therefore sent a Letter of Formal Notice under Article 228
(ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

The Commission confirms that it will take into account the issue raised by the Honourable Member when
examining any measures proposed by Ireland to satisfy the judgment.

(2001/C 261 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0194/01

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Armin Laschet (PPE-DE),
Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE), Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE)
and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Restoration of international rail freight transport on the historical route of the Ijzeren Rijn line

1. When the possible reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line is discussed, the Treaty of 1839 between the
is the
Netherlands and Belgium is often cited, which provides for the right of
relationship between the provisions of this Treaty and the relevant European legislation?

free transit. What

2. Would reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line require an environmental impact assessment, despite the
fact that the line already exists?

The line runs through areas which are protected pursuant to the Wild Birds and Habitat Directives.

3.
What are the consequences of this?

4. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the existing line between Antwerp and the Ruhr (the stations
Aachen West-Montzen and a new line via Venlo) as an alternative to reopening the Ijzeren Rijn line?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2001)

In its answers to Written Questions E-2381/99 (1) and E-0525/00 by Mr Staes (2), the Commission pointed
out that the treaty on Belgian-Dutch secession of 19 April 1839, and the resultant treaties are bilateral
agreements concluded between two Member States and do not impinge upon Community law where they
are not in breach of the treaties on European Union.