WRITTEN QUESTION P-2719/01 by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission. Possible breach of Directive 92/43/EEC.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, Piedmont, environmental impact, exchange of information, impact study, mining operation, protected area, water management

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/177

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The Commission has taken note of the situation involving the Gastouni producer organisation.

is contacting the national authorities to obtain details of

It
organisation so it can consider what action should be taken.

the situation involving the producer

The Honourable Member will be informed of the results of the Commission’s enquiries.

(2002/C 93 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2712/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 October 2001)

Subject: Destruction of a biotope in Elafoniso in Crete included in the Natura network

Since the beginning of the Summer the Municipality of Pelakano has been constructing an outdoor car
park at Elafoniso in Crete (in the prefecture of Chania) in an area protected by the Natura network and
included in the Life programme. This project is destroying an important biotope, and local inhabitants are
protesting against it.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to maintain this biotope which is protected under the
Natura network?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The island of Elafonissos and the coast opposite have been formally proposed by the Greek authorities as
Sites of Community Importance (codes GR 4340002 and 4340015 respectively) for inclusion in the
Natura 2000 network under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of wild fauna and flora) (1). Management measures have also been prepared for Elafonissos as
part of a LIFE-Nature project.

The Greek authorities are responsible for preserving this area and must take all necessary measures to
ensure that activities pursued there do not cause it to deteriorate. The management plan should,
in
particular, be taken into consideration.

The Commission would ask the Honourable Member to provide further information on the problem, so
that it may do the necessary research and reply to his question.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 93 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2719/01

by Marco Formentini (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Possible breach of Directive 92/43/EEC

Serious tension has arisen in the Carrosio and Gavi areas in the province of Piemonte owing to plans to
start mining work that would result in:

< the destruction of the springs which feed the aqueducts supplying drinking water to the whole of the

municipality of Carrosio and part of that of Gavi;

< and the construction of a collection point for a replacement aqueduct in the Capanne di Marcarolo

nature park.

C 93 E/178

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

The above work appears to have been approved at regional level in clear breach of a series of provisions
laid down by the Italian government and by the regional authorities themselves.

Given that the work is likely to start in the near future and that, once started, any damage caused will be
difficult if not impossible to reverse, does the Commission intend to look into the matter and approach the
Piemonte regional authorities with a view to preventing the destruction which the local population and the
local authorities are so worried about?

Might not Directive 92/43/EEC (1) have been breached in this instance?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (1), establishes that projects which are likely to have significant effects
on the environment, by virtue of their nature, size or location, are made subject of an assessment of their
effects (EIA, environmental impact assessment). Classes of projects covered by the Directive are listed in the
two annexes. Projects listed in Annex I require an EIA procedure. Under Article 4(2), projects of the classes
listed in Annex II are made subject to an EIA, where Member States consider that their characteristics so
require.

Pursuant to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC (2), for
projects listed in Annex II, Member States are obliged to determine, through a case-by-case examination, or
thresholds or criteria set by the Member States, whether the project is to be made subject to an EIA.
However, projects whose requests for development consent were submitted to a competent authority
before 14 March 1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes
reference could fall either into the scope of paragraph 2 (extractive industry) of Annex II of Directive
into paragraph 19 (Quarries and open-cast mining where the
85/337/EEC prior to the amendments,
surface of the site exceeds 25 hectares, or peat extraction, where the surface of the site exceeds 150
hectares) of Annex I of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC, or paragraph 2
(extractive industry) of Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC, as modified by Directive 97/11/EC.

In addition, on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it appears that the
project could be likely to have a significant effect on certain sites covered by Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Under Article 6, paragraph 3, of Directive 92/43/EEC, with reference to the sites which, according to the
procedure laid down by the Directive, will be listed as Sites of Community Importance (SCI) and which
will be designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) any plan or project not directly connected with
or necessary to the management of
thereon, either
individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of
its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.

likely to have a significant effect

the site but

However, at present, the above mentioned provision is not fully binding. The procedure mentioned, which
provides that SCIs are chosen from a list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI), and then
designated as SACs, has not been concluded. The sites presently covered by the directive, included those
mentioned by the Honourable Member, are still at the stage of proposed sites (pSCI). With reference to
pSCIs, Member States have certain obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive
are not jeopardised. In particular, they are advised to at least abstain from all activities that may cause a
proposed site to deteriorate.

In the specific case, not being aware of
the
Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure,
within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the observance of Community law.

the situation described by the Honourable Member,

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 < 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

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).