WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/01 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Use of European structural funding (ERDF) of DM 500 million to build the motorway A 17 in Saxony, Germany.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, Structural Funds, application of EU law, bird, motorway, protection of animal life

C 93 E/60

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

To what extent have the negotiations between the Member States and the Commission progressed and/or
when can an official decision regarding recognition of the course offered by the Vaduz university by all the
Member States of the EEA, including the EU Member States, be expected?

(1) OJ L 223, 21.8.1985, p. 15.
(2) OJ C 42 8.2.2001, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

The matter of diplomas for architects from the Fach-Hochschule Liechtenstein was discussed at the 81st
European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Committee meeting of 15 December 2000, and again at the next
meeting on 25 January 2001, where it was ‘stated, for the record, that the Community would not
recognise this diploma’. However the EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) side was of the opinion
that
this matter fell under the competence of the EFTA Surveillance
Authority (ESA)’.

‘according to the Agreement,

Subsequently, at the 83rd meeting of 23 February 2001 ‘The President stated that it was noted that the
EFTA Surveillance Authority had published a communication in the Official
Journal stating that the
diploma in question was to be recognised by all the Contracting Parties. That publication, however,
overlooked the fact that already in December 2000 the Commission had reserved its right not to recognise
the diploma and in January 2001 had notified the Joint Committee that that right was exercised. He
strongly objected to the publication that gave readers a misleading image of the situation’.

As things stand,
the architects diplomas from the Fach-Hochschule Liechtenstein are therefore not
recognised in the Community. One of the curricula leading to the diploma does not fulfil the requirements
under Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of
the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.

Negotiations are currently under way between the Parties in order to find a solution. Liechtenstein is
expected to come up with a proposal after the summer recess, which will be given swift and careful
attention by the Commission.

(2002/C 93 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2093/01

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Use of European structural funding (ERDF) of DM 500 million to build the motorway A 17 in

Saxony, Germany

The European Union is supporting the construction of the motorway A 17 (Dresden ? Prague) with ERDF
funding amounting to DM 500 million (‘horizontal structural
fund programme to improve road
infrastructure in East Germany’). The construction of this road is endangering European conservation
areas defined in accordance with the wild birds directive (79/409/EEC) (1) and the habitats directive
(79/409/EEC) (2)..

Did the Commission agree to a reduction in the Fürstenau special protection area (EU registration
1.(a)
number 435) in 1998, although this could not be justified as far as conservation was concerned, but was
designed to make way for planning permission for the A 17?

How can the Commission justify approving this, although it meant splitting up the habitat for the

1.(b)
black grouse, the eagle owl and the black stork, and hence jeopardising the survival of these species?

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/61

Is the Commission aware that noise and emissions from the A 17 motorway are damaging the
2.(a)
immediately adjacent special protection area (SPA), now of reduced size, and that this fact was not
examined and therefore not assessed in the environmental impact assessment?

If it is, does the Commission consider it is justified that the motorway should take priority over the
conservation area, and why?

How can the Commission justify the fact that a European conservation area (SPA)

2.(b)
permanently damaged with the help of European funding?

is being

3.(a)
Is the Commission aware that ? again in order to facilitate planning permission for the A 17 ?
habitat areas for species listed in Annex II of the Habitats Directive (lesser horseshoe bat, lynx, ground-
squirrel, bullhead and brook lamprey) have been registered as significantly smaller than the existing
habitats? What is the Commission’s opinion of this, in view of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
7 November 2000 (C-371/98) and the fact that the Land of Saxony, with only 3.5 % of its territory
registered as SPA areas, has not anywhere near fulfilled its obligations?

3.(b)
Is the Commission aware that the effects of the road building project will also jeopardise the
reduced SPA in the long term (because of noise and toxic emissions), but that this was inadequately
considered and assessed in the environmental impact assessment? If so, why did it nevertheless approve the
use of European funding?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1997, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

On 16 March 2001, the Commission approved the operational programme ‘Transport Infrastructure’
under the Community support framework for the German regions eligible for Objective 1 funding during
the 2000-2006 programming period (1). This Operational Programme does not describe individual projects
which the German authorities intend to submit at a later stage. These authorities have not yet formally
applied for funding for the motorway A17 in Saxony.

1.(a)

The Commission has not agreed to a reduction of the Natura 2000-site Fürstenau.

1.(b)

In the light of the answer to question 1a., no answer is required.

2.(a)
The Commission has been informed by a complaint of possible conflicts of the construction of the
motorway A 17 between Dresden and Prague in the Bundesland Saxony both with the Wild Birds
Directive 79/409/EEC (2) and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (3). It has recently been decided to send a
letter of formal notice to Germany, which addresses the lack of sufficient proposals of Sites of Community
Importance (SCI) under Article 4 (1) of the Habitats Directive and the disrespect of the protection regime
under Article 6 (3) and (4) of that Directive, also in relation to Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated
under Article 4 (1) of the Birds Directive. The relevant sites in the corridor of the planned motorway,
including the area Fürstenau, are expressly mentioned in this letter of formal notice. The infringement case
also addresses the insufficient assessment of implications of the motorway project under Article 6 (3) of the
Habitats Directive with a view to the existing proposed SCIs and SPAs.

The Commission will ensure the respect of the relevant provisions of Community environmental law in
in particular of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (4), as amended by Council Directive
this context,
97/11/EC (5), as well as of Article 6 (4) of the Habitats Directive.

According to the latter, a plan or project which is likely to have a significant negative effect on Natura
2000-sites can be justified if:

(i)

there are no alternative solutions,

(ii)

there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, and

(iii) compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

C 93 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

If priority habitat types and species are concerned, only considerations related to human health or public
safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment or, further to an opinion
from the Commission, to other imperative reasons of overriding public interest may be raised.

2.(b)

In the absence of a formal request for funding, the Commission has not yet approved the project.

According to the Community’s financial regulations, the respect of Community environmental policy,
including Community environmental law, is a pre-condition for the granting of European funding.

3.(a)

See answer to question 2(a).

3.(b)

See answers to question 2(a) and 2(b).

(1) C/2001/536.
(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds ? OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ?

OJ L 206, 22.7.1997.

(4) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment ? OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(5) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 93 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2117/01

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Colza

Given the fact that colza, coming as it does from oil seed rape, is a renewable source of energy, what steps
does the Commission plan to take to encourage the wider use throughout the European Union of this
resource, which is already being used by a bus company in Toulouse?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Under Community programmes such as the 5th Framework Programme in the field of research and
technological development (RTD) and the programme for the promotion of alternative energy sources
(Altener), the Commission has supported projects concerning the production of biofuels, including their
use in public transport. Biodiesel produced from colza is one of the standardisation mandates funded
under the Altener programme that the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) is in the process of
drawing up for the Commission.

The Commission maintains its intention to promote the use of biofuels in transport, including biodiesel
produced from colza and other crops, extending beyond support under Community programmes.

To this end, a communication is being prepared on a medium- and long-term strategy for alternative fuels,
together with two proposals for Directives, one on a minimum level of biofuels in the total volume of fuels
sold on the European market, and the other on the possibility of a tax reduction for biofuels.

According to its work programme for 2001, the communication should be adopted by the Commission in
the fourth quarter of 2001.