WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Purely domestic considerations in the development of Laarbruch airport in Germany on the border with the Netherlands.
Date: 2001-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Limburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Structural Funds, airport, cross-border cooperation, environmental impact, frontier region, industrial project, project evaluation

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/21

The Commission is currently providing financial support in excess of € 2,2 millions to NGOs (through
Euronaid) for the provision of agricultural inputs for El Salvador. The Commission is also considering the
possible reorientation of some on-going projects and the use of contingencies to better meet the needs
created by the present crisis.

The Commission is following with attention the situation in the region through its Delegations with the
support of the Food Security and ECHO’s resident advisors. Until 31 August 2001 the Commission could
also rely upon high quality reporting and analysis provided by the former Technical Assistance Office of
the European network for food safety (RESAL).

(1) http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/faoinfo/economic/giews/english/alertes/2001/SA317CA.htm.

(2002/C 147 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2499/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Purely domestic considerations in the development of Laarbruch airport in Germany on the border

with the Netherlands

Is the Commission aware of plans to develop the former British military airbase at Laarbruch near

1.
Weeze (Germany, North Rhine Westphalia, Düsseldorf, Kleve) for use as a civilian airport?

2.
Is the Commission aware that Laarbruch is close to the Dutch border and that the approach route to
the landing and takeoff runway which lies in an East-West direction causes considerable nuisance to the
village of Bergen (province of Limburg) and the De Hamert nature reserve on the Dutch side of the border?

3.
Is the Commission also aware that in drafting these plans only the impact on the environment and
economy on the German side of the border and the relevant German environmental standards have been
considered so far and that the negative repercussions of the plan on the Dutch side of the border have
been totally disregarded. Proximity to the border between the two countries has been used only as a means
of propaganda to support the claim that the airport is a ‘Euregional’ facility which would benefit the Dutch
towns of Venlo and Nijmegen?

4.
Can the Commission confirm that there are also plans to allow flights between 11 p.m. and midnight
and between 5 and 6 a.m., which was not the case for the former military airbase or for regional airports
in the Netherlands, as result of which those living in the area will find their sleep seriously disturbed?

5. What action can be taken to avoid an outdated approach of shifting environmental problems onto a
neighbouring country and once again creating the impression that European cooperation does not help
solve cross-border problems between two or more Member States?

6. What can the Commission do to ensure the democratic involvement of all interested parties and the
proper weighing up of all the conflicting interests on either side of the Dutch-German border?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

1.
Following information received from the German authorities, financial support from the Structural
Funds for work related to the conversion of Weeze-Laarbruch airport has been provided through the
Konver II programme for North Rhein-Westphalia during the 1994-1999 programming period, of which
the overall purpose was to support economic diversification in regions heavily dependent on the defence

C 147 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

sector. Financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund for these measures amounts to
€ 1,140,140,
i.e. 26 % of their total public costs. However, the Structural Funds have not supported
construction work on airport facilities at Weeze-Laarbruch, including runways, but measures concerning
analyses on conversion of the airport and the construction of a business park.

2.

The Commission is aware of the location of the airport and possible noise nuisances.

North Rhein-Westphalia’s Ministry for Economic Affairs, Small Businesses, Energy and Transport,
indicates that Dutch environmental

3.
which is responsible for managing the Konver II programme,
authorities have been involved in the consideration of measures financed through the Structural Funds.

4.
As stated by the Commission in its decision of 22 July 1998 (1) on access to Karlstad airport, Member
states may apply certain restrictive operational measures, such as night curfews, provided that such
measures respect the provisions and procedures of articles 8 and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) 2408/92 (2)
as well as comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

5.
For projects with likely significant effects on the environment of another Member State, article 7 of
Directive 85/337/EEC as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (3) on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment
(EIA) provides for information and consultation
arrangements between the Member States concerned regarding inter alia, measures envisaged to reduce
or eliminate such effects. Where the EIA Directive applies, noise nuisance including its transboundary
dimension, would need to be studied, amongst other environmental
in the context of the
environmental report and taken into account in the development consent procedure.

impacts,

The Commission is of the opinion that the EIA Directive gives sufficient assurances for proper

6.
involvement of all the parties concerned.

(1) OJ L 233, 20.8.1998, p. 25-31.
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 8.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(2002/C 147 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(14 September 2001)

Subject: Continued violation of human rights in Turkey and Kurdistan

In reply to my question E-1563/00 (1), the Council informed me that it remained ‘concerned about the
human rights situation in Turkey, including the practice of torture’. There were several serious reports
about torture and ill-treatment in Turkey, not only from Kurdistan but also from other regions.

According to the Council, the Turkish Government openly recognised the existence of torture. The Turkish
authorities were taking a number of measures in order to put an end to the practice of torture in Turkey,
and had announced plans for further measures. The Council also stated that it would continue to monitor
the situation and encourage Turkey to take all necessary measures to ensure that human rights were fully
respected.

Almost eleven months following this statement by the Council, however, a drastic deterioration is being
seen in the human rights situation in Turkey. On Thursday, 23 August 2001,
the Human Rights
Association of Turkey (IHD), one of the most highly respected human rights organisations, reported a
sharp rise in the number of cases of torture (source: Reuters).

In the first six months of this year, no fewer than 435 people made complaints of torture, compared with
263 during the same period of last year and 334 in 1999. In addition, the public prosecutors indicted
1 519 people for opinions expressed in speeches or in writing. There is, consequently, clearly no question
of an improvement in the human rights situation in Turkey.