WRITTEN QUESTION P-1089/01 by Pier Casini (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Road works to improve the junction between the Via Emilia and the SS (state highway) Selice Montanara and link the Via Borghi to the Via Marzabotto, in the commune of Imola.
Date: 2001-03-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, impact study, local legislation, road building

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/225

(2001/C 261 E/256)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1058/01

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Town-twinning grants

Can the Commission state whether, in the 2002 programme for the promotion of town-twinning, it will
be prepared to change the rules so that twin towns situated within the 250 kilometres limit but separated
by a sea crossing are eligible to receive town-twinning grants? This change would take account of the fact
that sea crossings cost considerably more than the equivalent overland journey.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2001)

The subject raised by the Honourable Member has been discussed with the partner organisations involved
in town twinning (in principle the Council of European Municipalities and Regions and the FØdØration
Mondiale des CitØs Unies) on several occasions, most recently during the consultations of October 2000
concerning introduction of the new procedure for calls for proposals.

There are two reasons for the Commission(cid:146)s decision to introduce the 250 km limit for the eligibility of
projects involving exchanges between citizens of twin towns. The first is that the Commission wishes to
encourage the creation of links between towns and cities which are further apart, as it feels that distance
constitutes a major obstacle to closer links between European citizens. The second reason is that below a
certain threshold the administration costs involved in processing a grant application exceed the amount of
the grant itself, which the Commission feels runs contrary to the principles of sound management.

Nevertheless, the Commission acknowledges the relevance of the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question and is
willing to examine the possibility of changing current practice at the meeting which will be organised in
autumn 2001 to take stock of how the new procedure for awarding town-twinning grants is functioning.

(2001/C 261 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1089/01

by Pier Casini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 March 2001)

Subject: Road works to improve the junction between the Via Emilia and the SS (state highway) Selice

Montanara and link the Via Borghi to the Via Marzabotto, in the commune of Imola

Article 152 of the Treaty establishing the European Community requires the European Union to ensure (cid:145)a
high level of human health protection(cid:146). Community policy on the environment, as specified in Article 174
et seq. of the EC Treaty, is based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive
action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified as a priority. The programme of
the current (Swedish) presidency of the Council, moreover, reflects its interest in environmental problems.
The preventive principle is enshrined in the provisions of Council Directives 85/337/EEC (1) and 97/11/
EC (2) relating to environmental impact assessment, which recently gave rise to an action for infringement
(1999/2181) brought on the basis of Article 226 against Italy with reference to the legislation of certain
regions, including Emilia Romagna. Yet the Commune of Imola has allowed work to begin on the project
which is the subject of the present question despite the absence of an adequate acoustic impact study or
indeed any form of environmental impact assessment. The opinion of the regional environmental agency

C 261 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.9.2001

(ARPA) for Emilia Romagna is basically opposed to the projected road works being carried out without
suitable modifications. This matter is also the subject of Petition no. 553/2000 to the European Parliament,
which the Committee on Petitions accepted as admissible on 24 January 2001.

In view of the foregoing:

1. What

immediate measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure the relevant
Italian
authorities comply with Community environmental legislation, which the Commune of Imola has
flagrantly breached, in the light of the settled case-law of the Court of Justice and the position adopted
by the Commission itself
in drawing up its reasoned opinion in connection with infringement
proceedings 1999/2181?

2. To avert the risk of serious and irreparable damage to the health of citizens living in the area
concerned and their right to a wholesome environment, what urgent action does the Commission
consider it would be appropriate to support to ensure a serious analysis of the environmental and
acoustic impact is carried out and to make such an assessment an essential prerequisite for the
implementation of the second stage of the project, which has not been started yet and which, unlike
the first part, is due to be financed entirely from public funds?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

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

(25 April 2001)

According to Council Directives 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1) and 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), which has modified
Directive 85/337/EEC, Member States are obliged to ensure that, before consent is given, projects likely to
have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made
subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects. Projects
covered by the Directive are identified in the Annexes. The Commission has the task of ensuring the
correct application of Community law and, therefore, in this case, of assessing whether the Community
legislation on environmental
impact assessment (EIA) has been correctly applied in the Member State
concerned.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes
reference, an urban road and a junction with an extra-urban road, could fall either into class 10 d)
Construction of roads, harbours, including fishing harbours, and airfields (projects not listed in Annex I) of
Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments or into class 10 e) Construction of roads,
harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I) of Annex II
of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC.

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling into Annex II are to be made
subject to an EIA where Member States consider that their characteristics so require. However, Member
States are considered to be obliged to make a pre-assessment in order to establish whether Annex II
projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified, for
Annex II projects, Member States are obliged to determine through a case-by-case examination or
thresholds or by the setting of criteria whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in
accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

In order to identify the correct Community law to be applied it is necessary to check when the request for
development consent was submitted to the competent authority: projects whose requests for development
consent were submitted to a competent authority before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of
Directive 85/337/EEC (prior to its 1997 amendment).

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/227

The Commission has already opened a complaint on the project and a letter has been sent to the Italian
authorities to request information on the issue. The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to
ensure the observance of Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 261 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: EU-US (cid:145)safe harbour(cid:146) agreement on data protection

In October 2000 the Commission predicted that 100 US companies would sign up for Safe Harbour
during its first month, with up to 1 000 joining within a year.

How many companies have joined to date?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2001)

The (cid:145)Safe harbor(cid:146) arrangement entered into effect on 1 November 2000. Thirty American based companies
have joined so far (30 March 2001). The list of companies is publicly available at http://www.export.gov/
safeharbor/.

The estimates to which the Honorable Member refers in his question are those made by the American
Department of Commerce in October 2000 and subsequently relayed to the Parliament by the Commi-
ssion.

(2001/C 261 E/259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1111/01

by Brian Crowley (UEN) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages

The Dublin Office of the Bureau for Lesser Used Languages has played a central role in helping to
safeguard and promote the lesser used languages throughout the European Community. Now the expertise
of the Bureau, built up over many years, is being directly and unjustly jeopardised by Commission threats
to close it down in the interests of costs and utterly against the interests of all those who speak lesser used
languages throughout the Community. Does the Commission agree that the EU must show respect for
cultural diversity and will it now do so by committing itself to the retention of the Dublin Bureau for
Lesser Used Languages?