WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/01 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Natura 2000 network - application of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (habitats-fauna-flora directive) - concept of significant disturbance.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, environmental impact, hunting, national implementing measure, protected area, protection of animal life

C 40 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

Responsibility for the integration of migrants lies with the Member State which has admitted the migrants
concerned. The Commission has not, therefore, carried out any systematic analysis of such programmes.

the Commission has put

In its Communication on an Open Method of Coordination for the Community Immigration Policy (1) of
11 July 2001,
forward proposals for European Guidelines, one of which
(Guideline 6) concerns the development of comprehensive national integration policies for third country
nationals residing legally on the territory of the Member State concerned. Once approved by the Council,
Member States will be invited to submit national plans for the implementation of this guideline which
includes the setting of an appropriate framework to ensure the involvement of all the relevant actors
including migrants themselves.

The implementation of the open coordination method will enable the Commission in the future to provide
information on the success of integration programmes for migrants and on the key factors which bring
this about, including the role of migrants in the conception and running of such programmes.

The Commission intends to put forward proposals in 2002 for an Action Programme to promote the
integration of immigrants. Subject to the adoption of this programme and to the provision of the
necessary resources, the suggestion made by the Honorable Member could be considered within the
context of the activities to be supported.

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.

(2002/C 40 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2055/01

by Jean-Louis BerniØ (EDD) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 network (cid:129) application of Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May

1992 ((cid:145)habitats-fauna-flora directive(cid:146)) (cid:129) concept of significant disturbance

At the moment of transcription by decree into national law of Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979
(the (cid:145)wild birds(cid:146) directive) and Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 (the (cid:145)habitats directive(cid:146)), the French
implementing law lays down a general principle, namely that (cid:145)(cid:133) fishing, hunting and other similar
activities practised in the conditions and on the land areas authorised by the laws and regulations in force
should not constitute disturbing activities or activities having such effects(cid:146) (Article 3(6)).

The European Court of Justice, in its judgment of 19 January 1994, stated: (cid:145)Any hunting activity is liable
to disturb wildlife and (cid:133) may in many cases affect the state of conservation of the species concerned,
independently of the extent to which it depletes numbers (cid:133) Those disturbances are reported to have an
adverse impact on the level of energy of each individual and the mortality rate of all the populations
concerned.(cid:146)

The Commission, in its reasoned opinion of 13 September 1994, took the view that Article 7 does not
authorise hunting within a special protected area and that hunting activities inevitably affect the life of
birds, even if guarantees are made that those birds will not be killed. It added that beating, gun-shots and
the presence of hunters with dogs are incompatible with the objectives of reproduction and survival laid
down in Article 4.

Is the text of the French implementing law compatible with Article 6(2) of the (cid:145)habitats(cid:146) directive which
replaces Article 4 of the (cid:145)wild birds directive(cid:146) and with the judgment of the European Court of Justice, as
well as with the Commission(cid:146)s interpretations in its reasoned statements and in its guide to the
management of (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) sites (especially paragraphs 3.2 and following?).

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/173

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

(18 September 2001)

the texts transposing Article 6 of Council
The Commission informs the Honourable Member that
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
into French law are currently being examined for conformity by the Commission.

Hunting is a legitimate activity in accordance with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds and does not have to be outlawed a priori from Natura 2000 sites. As far as
sites protected under Directive 92/43/EEC are concerned, game hunting is highly unlikely to cause a
problem, except for a small number of species. As far as sites protected under Directive 79/409/EEC are
concerned,
In numerous cases, properly managed hunting is not
incompatible with maintaining species of birds in a good state of conservation. That is why a human
activity such as hunting has to be carried out under strict conditions in order to ensure a balance between
the activity in question and the long-term conservation interest of the species of birds likely to be hunted.
The most appropriate framework for defining such conditions on a case by case basis is a site management
plan which involves the parties concerned.

the question is more complex.

As the Commission makes clear in the guide (cid:145)Managing Natura 2000 sites (cid:129) the provisions of Article 6 of
the Habitats Directive(cid:146), conditions governing the concepts of (cid:145)disturbances(cid:146) have to be assessed in the light
of the general state of conservation of the species or habitats concerned and in the light of local
conditions. At a particular site, disturbances are generally appraised on a case by case basis. The
Commission considers that a species is being disturbed when the data relating to the population dynamic
of that site show that, compared with the initial situation, the species in question might no longer
constitute a viable element of the site concerned. This appraisal is carried out in accordance with the site(cid:146)s
contribution to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network.

Incidentally, as far as the Honourable Member(cid:146)s reference to the Commission(cid:146)s reasoned opinion of
13 September 1994 is concerned, the Commission(cid:146)s position in this matter reflected an extreme situation
at the site in question, where the pressure of hunting on the fauna present was unusually severe.

Finally, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with Article 220 (formerly Article 164) of the EC Treaty,
the Court of Justice has the sole power to interpret Community law.

(2002/C 40 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2058/01

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Prevention of occupational diseases

Council Directive 89/391/EEC (1) of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage
improvements in the safety and health of workers at work states, in its Article 5, that (cid:145)the employer shall
have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.(cid:146)

Despite this, in Portugal work-related tendinitis has been on the rise since 1992. In 1994, 150 employees
of Ford Electr(cid:243)nica were already suffering from this disease. Today, in the electrical sector and in southern
Portugal alone, 1500 workers aged under 30, employed by such firms as Visteon (formerly Ford
Electr(cid:243)nica), Indelma, Delphi, Deta, Pioneer, Samsung, Legrand ElØctrica and Tyco, have been confirmed as
suffering from tendinitis, and the same fate could soon await thousands of others.

One of the factors common to enterprises where tendinitis is rife is the so-called (cid:145)modernisation(cid:146) of work.
The labour process is characterised by mechanisation, fragmentation of production and a high degree of
specialisation. This means an increase in the number of tasks which place high physical demands on the
hands, arms and shoulders and which call for fast, exact and repetitive movements, which may require
considerable straining, difficult postures and the use of force.