WRITTEN QUESTION P-2723/01 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Natura 2000 — Habitats Directive — France — rescission by court decision of the forwarding of lists of areas in France — consultation of local people and taking account of their opinions.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, consultation procedure, local government, protected area, protection of animal life, protection of plant life

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/179

Should the Commission be informed that Community law is being breached in the specific case, it would
not hesitate, as the guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures,
including infringement
procedures under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty,
in order to ensure the observance of
relevant Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 93 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2720/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Production levy in France

According to the ‘Journal Officiel de la République Française’ of 24 December 1995, Interbev (the national
meat office), in addition to the fixed production levy on animals for slaughter, is also imposing a levy of
0 084 FFR on imported beef (French beef being covered by the production levy at the slaughterhouse).

Does the Commission consider it to be compatible with Community law for beef produced in other EU
countries to be subject to an extra production levy not levied on nationally produced meat, when a levy
has already been charged in the country of origin?

Does the Commission consider it to be compatible with the GATT agreement
from non-
Community countries to be subject to a production levy over and above the internationally determined
import duties, etc.?

for beef

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission is aware of the French legislation cited by the Honourable Member. It has contacted the
French authorities in this connection to obtain details of the planned levy. Since a parafiscal charge
apparently intended to finance the inter-branch organisation Interbev is involved, the matter is currently
being considered in the light of the agricultural rules on State aid. The Commission’s standing practice is to
regard a charge that is also levied on products imported from other Member States as having an effect
equivalent to a customs duty or as being discriminatory in accordance with the case law of the Court of
Justice.

Since the matter is currently under examination, the Commission cannot express an opinion at this stage
as to the exact nature of the charge or any effects it might have on competition or indeed on intra- and
extra-Community trade. The Commission will inform the Honourable Member of its conclusions in due
course.

As regards the levying of a charge on products from non-member countries, the Commission does not
have sufficient grounds to believe that the measures are in conflict with the Community’s commitments
under the GATT/WTO rules, and in particular under Articles II and III of GATT 1994.

(2002/C 93 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2723/01

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Natura 2000 B Habitats Directive B France B rescission by court decision of the forwarding of
lists of areas in France B consultation of local people and taking account of their opinions

In France, the Council of State rescinded by a judgment of 27 September 1999 (case no 194648) the first
notification decisions by means of which the Minister of
the Environment had forwarded to the
Commission lists relating to 534 areas eligible for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network (decisions of
16 October, 3 December and 9 December 1997).

C 93 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

The Council of State has just, for the second time, penalised the Minister of Regional Development and the
Environment, by judgment of 22 June 2001 (case no 219995) because, despite his claims, he was unable
to prove that he had genuinely completed the whole of the consultation procedure required by French law
before information is forwarded to the European authorities.

France’s Minister of the Environment is now therefore compelled to initiate a genuine local consultation
procedure before forwarding any further information. But will he genuinely take account of local people’s
opinions? In France, in most areas which are not currently the subject of any strong regulatory protection
of the nature-reserve type, representatives of land-owners, managers and users, without having been
officially consulted, have virtually unanimously expressed their opposition to the possibility that their area
might be designated eligible for recognition as being of Community importance. France’s Minister of the
Environment has not taken their adverse opinions into account but has notified the Commission of the
areas in question.

Does the implementation of public policies concerning the conservation of the environment and regional
development, particularly the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, require direct consultation of
local people, particularly land-owners, managers and other users?

In the light of developments at Community level regarding taking account of the opinions of local people
(particularly the integration of the Aarhus Convention), to what extent must Member States take account
of the opinions of these local people when forwarding notifications concerning areas eligible for inclusion
in the Natura 2000 network, especially where representatives of land-owners, managers and users are
unanimously opposed to such notification?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

According to information sent to the Commission, the Council of State’s judgment of 27 September 1999
rescinded the notification of 534 sites proposed to the Commission for the Natura 2000 network by the
French authorities, on the grounds that the statutory consultation procedure had not been followed
properly. As yet, the Commission has received no official communication from the French authorities
regarding the situation.

Regarding the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, Directive 92/43/EEC (1), adopted unanimously
lays down protection objectives for natural sites of
by the European Council of Ministers in 1992,
Community importance. Like all directives, however, it leaves Member States free to choose the way in
which they will achieve those objectives. The choice and delimitation of sites and the procedures for
consulting local stakeholders fall within the jurisdiction of the national authorities.

Neither the Community nor France has yet ratified the United Nations/ECE Convention on access to
information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters. As a
result, the obligations laid down by the Convention are not yet applicable.

In any event, the Convention contains no specific requirement regarding public consultation in cases such
as this.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 93 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2727/01

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Waste disposal in Chalkidiki, Greece

I have been informed about possible infringements of Community environment and hygiene rules in
Chalkidiki, Greece, where slurry is reportedly dumped regularly into the sea near beaches. Slurry is
reportedly also stored there with various types of waste on dried-out river beds.