WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Complain by Manfred Jost, complaint No 00/51228, SG (2000) A/14901 against the Federal Republic of Germany concerning coal mining at the Warndt/Luisenthal mine.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, environmental impact, impact study, infringement procedure (EU), mining extraction, national implementing measure

C 81 E/130

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2207/01

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful aid to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH

(17 July 2001)

It is reported in issue No 9 of the German magazine EUWID Laubholz, of 26 April 2001, that the EU
competition authorities are to investigate whether Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH(cid:146)s sawmill in Malchow has
received unlawful aid.

Will the Commission therefore state:

(cid:129) If it has reached any conclusion as regards its investigation into the aid granted and how much aid has

been granted to date?

(cid:129) How it intends to ensure that Pollmeier Massivholz does not use subsidies in future to undercut its

competitors in either the raw wood or the finished goods markets?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission has opened the formal investigation proceedings of Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty on
13 March 2001 against aid granted to Pollmeier GmbH, Malchow and Pollmeier GmbH & Co. KG, K(cid:228)sslitz.
Both companies are related to Pollmeier Massivholz GmbH through their sole shareholder.

The authorities of the Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern granted investment aid for the creation of a
sawmill
in Malchow amounting to an aid intensity of 48,8 % gross of eligible investment costs of
€ 27,7 million.

The Land Thuringen granted investment aid for the setting up of a new sawmill and wood-processing
capacities in K(cid:228)sslitz. The total aid intensity amounts to 43,4 % gross of eligible investment costs of
€ 44,93 million.

Both investments are located in less-favoured regions in virtue of Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The
intensities of the above aid awards imply that the beneficiary in each case is a small and medium sized
enterprise (SME) in order for the aid to comply with the relevant rules, notably those on regional aid. The
Commission is therefore investigating whether the beneficiary of the aid meets the SME criteria laid down
by Community rules and, consequently, whether the whole of the aid is compatible with the common
market. Should this not be the case, the Commission will request the incompatible part of the aid to be
recovered in order to redress the distortion of competition.

(2002/C 81 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2211/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Complain by Manfred Jost, complaint No 00/51228, SG (2000) A/14901 against the Federal

Republic of Germany concerning coal mining at the Warndt/Luisenthal mine

1.
Is the Commission aware that a complaint procedure by the person lodging this complaint
concerning the above colliery was already pending before the Commission and that in this case the Court
of Justice ruled against the Federal Republic of Germany for delay in transposing European law (Case
C-301/95)?

2.
Is the Commission aware that even after the Court of Justice(cid:146)s judgment in October 1998 the
national authorities (cid:129) the Saarland mining authorities (cid:129) continued to permit coal mining without
impact assessment (Directive 85/337/EEC (1)), despite being
carrying out the necessary environmental
repeatedly urged to do so by the complainant?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/131

Is the Commission aware that the Saarland mining authorities are still refusing to halt mining,
impact assessment, and to carry out such an

3.
currently being conducted without an environmental
assessment?

How does the Commission intend to enforce the relevant European legislation, especially as in a
4.
letter of 20 April 1999 it assured the complainant that it was now watching over Germany to ensure that
it took action consequent to the judgment?

5.
How does the Commission ensure that necessary decisions are not taken only after months and in
some cases years of delay, in which time irreversible conditions are brought about by the mining activity?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

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

(7 September 2001)

1. and 3.
The Commission is aware of complaint 91/4626 concerning the coal mining activities at
Luisenthal which was lodged in 1991. That complaint has been grouped together with 15 other similar
complaints concerning the implementation of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) by Germany under the main
procedure 90/4710. The latter procedure finally led to the Court judgement in case C-301/95 where the
Court ruled on 22 October 1998 that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
under the EC Treaty by (1) not taking all measures necessary to transpose Council Directive 85/337/EEC
within the time allowed; (2) failing to notify to the Commission the necessary transposing measures; (3)
not providing for an environmental impact assessment concerning all the projects, which fall under the
scope of application of the above mentioned Directive and for which the development consent application
was made after the 3 July 1988; and (4) excluding entire classes of projects in Annex II of the above
mentioned Directive from the obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment.

2.
The Commission is also aware through new complaint number 2000/5128 of the fact that the
Saarland mining authorities continued to permit coal mining without carrying out an environmental
impact assessment.

4.
The Commission has informed the complainant about the above mentioned Court judgement and
has indicated to him that the Commission is now assessing the action taken by Germany to ensure that the
judgement is complied with. In the follow-up to the said Court judgement, the Commission has launched a
new infringement procedure based on Article 228 (ex-Article 171)of the EC Treaty by addressing according
to the rules a reminder on 12 November 1998, a letter of formal notice issued under Article 228 on
14 July 1999 and a Reasoned Opinion also under Article 228 on 1 February 2000 to the Federal Republic
of Germany. Since Germany still did not implement the Court judgement fully, the Commission sent an
application to the European Court of Justice pursuant to Article 228 of the EC Treaty on 12 February
2001, requesting a daily penalty payment of € 237 600. The case is still pending before the Court.

5.
The Commission has on top of the above mentioned procedure under Article 228 of the EC Treaty
also addressed a letter of formal notice to Germany pursuant to Article 226 (ex-Article 169) of the EC
Treaty after receiving information included in the current complaint. The German response has not arrived
yet. This decision by the Commission, i.e. to open another individual procedure in parallel to the main
case whilst the latter case is still to be decided by the Court, is not necessarily the normal procedure but
appeared to be justified in the present case as it was felt that urgent action should be taken. The
Commission has therefore done everything possible to ensure that the necessary decisions are taken
without delay.

(1) 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.