WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/01 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Habitats Directive and proposed Key Planning Decision for the Wadden Sea.
Date: 2001-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Netherlands, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental protection, fisheries policy, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, town and country planning

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/69

Does the Commission consider the circumstances referred to in question 5 as being compatible with
6.
Article 17(4) of Telecommunications Directive 98/10/EC, which stipulates that no payment may be
demanded of subscribers for facilities not required for the service requested?

further action will

in response to this question, both to correct
7. What
infringements of the directive concerned and to prevent any repeat of such practices for the purpose of
increasing charges, or imitation by others?

the Commission take,

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 24.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

The Commission is indeed aware that KPN has been offering its subscribers the choice of free voicemail
since 1998, and also that KPN has been imposing charges for listening to incoming voicemail messages
since May 2001.

In his question, the Honourable Member refers to the provisions of Article 17(4) and 17(5) of one of the
directives of the telecommunication legislative framework, Directive 98/10/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) and on universal
service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (the (cid:145)New Voice Telephony Directive(cid:146)).

The (voicemail) service described is not covered by the scope of the New Voice Telephony Directive.
Article 2, paragraph 3, under b) of this Directive indicates what is included in the term (cid:145)publicly available
telephone services(cid:146) for the purposes of the Directive, setting out a list of services that fall under the scope
of this Directive. The voicemail service, described above, cannot be considered as included in this list. The
article also clearly states that fixed public telephony services do not include value added services provided
over the public telephone network. As a consequence the voicemail service is not regulated by the
European telecommunications framework.

The voicemail service that KPN has offered since 1998 should therefore be classified as a commercial
service, which is fully open to competitive forces. The fact that KPN has set a price on this service could
indicate the opening up of possibilities for other operators to offer competitive prices, which would mean
more choice for the consumer.

Considering the above, the Commission does not see the need, nor does it have the competence on the
basis of the applicable legislative framework, to take action.

(2002/C 40 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1644/01

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) and Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2001)

Subject: Habitats Directive and proposed Key Planning Decision for the Wadden Sea

On 19 January 2001, the Netherlands Council of Ministers drew up its draft Key Planning Decision (KPD)
for the Wadden Sea (Third Policy Document). The KPD contains the main outlines of national government
policy for the Wadden Sea. It includes provisions that are directly binding on other authorities. It also
contains an assessment framework based partly on the European Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive,
against which new activities and the expansion of or changes to existing activities in the Wadden Sea must
be evaluated. The KPD encompasses a variety of activities in the Wadden Sea, including military activities
and sea-bed fishery. Sea-bed fishery is regarded by experts as very damaging to the coastal ecosystem. In
the Wadden Sea the mussel beds have disappeared and there has been a steep decline in the eider duck
population.

C 40 E/70

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

How does the Commission assess Netherlands fisheries policy as described in the draft KPD for the
1.
Wadden Sea in the light both of the Habitats Directive, in particular the precautionary principle laid down
therein, and of the biodiversity action plan for fisheries (1), and does it consider that policy as sufficient for
enabling sea-grass and mussel beds in the Wadden Sea to recover?

2.
How does the Commission assess the continuation of current military activities in and around the
Wadden Sea, as provided for and described in the Wadden Sea KPD, in the light of Article 6(2) of the
Habitats Directive, which lays down a preventive approach to deterioration of habitat or the endangering
of a species in a designated (cid:145)special area of conservation(cid:146)?

3.
Does the Commission consider the assessment framework included in the KPD as adequate both for
accurately assessing the possible cumulative impact of a combination of plans and projects and for
evaluating new activities (cid:129) such as transferring the Valkenburg naval airbase to Den Helder (cid:129) in
accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, and if not how should the Wadden Sea KPD be
adjusted?

Does the Commission agree that the reference to compelling social

4.
interest in the assessment
framework is compatible with the reference in Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive to (cid:145)imperative reasons
of overriding public interest(cid:146)? Will it consider its answer in the light of the infringement proceedings that it
has itself brought against the Netherlands government for inadequate incorporation of Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive into Netherlands environment protection law?

(1) COM(2001) 162.

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

(3 September 2001)

The Commission is not aware of the draft Key Planning Decision (KPD) for the Wadden Sea (Third Policy
Making Document). For this reason the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by
the Honourable Member. The Commission has launched an investigation in order to assess whether
permits for shellfish-fisheries and military activities in the Wadden Sea that have been granted by the
Dutch authorities are in conformity with Community law, in particular Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

As far as the fourth question is concerned the Commission is of the opinion that the reference to
(cid:145)compelling social interest(cid:146) in the assessment framework is not necessarily compatible with the reference in
Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC to (cid:145)imperative reasons of overriding public interest(cid:146) since the
Dutch criterion seems to be less strict than the criterion of the Directive. This question is already the
subject of an investigation concerning the conformity of the transposition of Directive 92/43/EEC into
Dutch law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 40 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/01

by JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(12 June 2001)

Subject: East Timor: lack of justice as regards sentences for murder

According to the international press, an Indonesian court has handed down prison sentences of between
10 and 20 months to six members of the militias which spread terror and murdered hundreds of civilians
in Timor following the referendum of August 1999, and who have been shown to have been involved in
the murders of three members of the United Nations staff, the American Carlos Casaeres, the Ethiopian
Samson Aregahegn and the Croatian Peril Simundze.