WRITTEN QUESTION E-1322/01 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Extension of a waste tip in Corialo, in the Cerreto Guidi (FI) municipality, Italy.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tuscany, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, protected area, waste management

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/123

(2001/C 350 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1322/01

by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Extension of a waste tip in Corialo, in the Cerreto Guidi (FI) municipality, Italy

There are plans to reopen and extend a solid urban waste tip in the municipality of Cerreto Guidi (FI), in
Italy.

A local residents(cid:146) action group has complained about the arrangements proposed by the local authorities.
A large proportion of the area in question consists of land on which high-quality products are grown
(wines and olive oil with registered and guaranteed designation of origin). Moreover, the area on which the
waste tip is due to be reopened is part of a (cid:145)site of public interest(cid:146), Padule du Fucecchio, which is
recognised as an area of outstanding natural importance.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

Does it intend to ask the relevant bodies for an explanation?

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

(28 June 2001)

Situations which are likely to be considered as a bad application of Community environmental law by the
Member States are normally drawn to the attention of
the Commission by letters of complaint,
Parliamentary Written Questions and Petitions to the Petitions Committee of the Parliament. However,
situations claimed to be inconsistent with the relevant Community law need to be precisely described so as
to enable the Commission to assess them in relation to applicable Community environmental law.

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.

impact assessment

to an environmental

Under Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments, projects falling into Annex II are to be made
subject
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. The above-mentioned determination is
known as (cid:145)screening(cid:146).

(EIA) where Member States consider

that

In the opinion of the Commission, based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work
to which the question makes reference, a landfill re-opening and extension, could fall within the scope of
Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, and, in particular, into categories 11c of Annex II of Directive 85/
337/EEC (Installations for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste, unless included in Annex I) and/or
11b of Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC (Installations for the disposal of waste (cid:129) projects not included in
Annex I).

impact assessment (EIA) legislation of Regione Toscana (Legge Regionale
However, the environmental
3 novembre 1998, no 79,
impatto ambientale(cid:146) come
(cid:145)Norme per l(cid:146)applicazione della valutazione di
modificata dalla Legge Regionale 20 dicembre 2000, no 79) provides that urban waste landfills with
a capacity of less than 100 000 cubic metre (m3) are examined in order to determine whether they have to
be made the subject of an EIA procedure, while urban waste landfills with a capacity of more than
100 000 m3 are automatically required to be made the subject of an EIA procedure. Therefore, Italian
legislation ensures that landfills in Regione Toscana are made the subject either of a screening or of an EIA
procedure. When the internal law complies with Community law and no evidence is given to presume that

C 350 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

it is going to be breached, the Commission considers that there are no grounds for intervention. In such
cases, unless it is clearly claimed that, with reference to a specific project, the competent authorities have
no intention of carrying out a screening/EIA procedure or that they have failed to carry them out, or that
the screening or the EIA procedures have been badly applied, the Commission is obliged to conclude that
a breach cannot be presumed. Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint with regard to the
application of the EIA procedure/screening in this specific case, no breach of the Directive can be identified
at present.

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (3), on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora, provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Conservation Areas
(SCA). Under Article 4, paragraph 5, of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to sites of
Community importance (SCI) when, on the basis of the list of proposed sites of Community importance
(pSCI), they are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 4 paragraph 2. At present,
SCA have not yet been designated and the list of the SCI has not yet been adopted. However, with
reference to proposed sites of Community importance, in particular when including priority habitat and
species, Member States 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(cid:146) authorities are
advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, no likely effects of the landfill project
on the proposed site of Community importance IT5130007 Padule Di Fucecchio have been identified.
Therefore, in the absence of more information on how habitats and species may be affected by the project,
no significant impact of the project on the sites mentioned can be presumed and no breach of the
Directive can be identified at present.

In the light of the above, due to a lack of grounds of complaint on the application of Community law, no
breach of Directives 85/337/EEC, as modified, and 92/43/EEC can be identified at present in the specific
case. On this basis, a request for explanation to national authorities cannot be justified.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 350 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1326/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Restructuring of the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for Fisheries

According to information received from fisheries organisations in Portugal, it appears that the Commission
is in the process of restructuring its Directorate-General for Fisheries so as to create a directorate which is
to centralise all policy on internal Community resources, fisheries agreements with northern Europe and
multiannual guidance programmes.

This centralisation would remove responsibility from the remaining directorates and divide Community
policy on fisheries agreements with third countries into two.

Can the Commission confirm this information? If so, what is the purpose of this restructuring?

Does it not take the view that splitting policy on fisheries agreements between north and south will
jeopardise the principle of policy integrity and breach the principle of equal treatment with which all
Community fisheries agreements must comply?

What implications does it consider that this restructuring will have for the EU fishing industry, particularly
for Portugal?