WRITTEN QUESTION E-2824/01 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Failure to comply with Community legislation in the construction of the Spanish high-speed train passing through Osera del Ebro.
Date: 2001-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, complaint to the Commission, exchange of information, high-speed transport, protected area, rail transport, report

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/117

With a view to further reinforcing the above framework, the agenda of the Council on 8 November 2001
envisages the adoption of Conclusions on the Commission’s Programme of Action. It notes that gender
aspects will be analysed and integrated within the priority areas contained in the EC Development Policy,
inter alia, support for macro-economic policies as well as trade and development (in particular to identify
mechanisms ensuring that trade and investments support gender equality).

3.
The Council is of the opinion that adequate human resources in terms of quantity, capacity and
continuity are crucial for a timely and effective implementation of this Programme of Action over the
coming years.

In this context the Council emphasises the need to include training on gender issues in all training
activities related to development cooperation and notes that the Commission’s internal gender main-
streaming capacities will be established through a number of methods (for instance training and the
development of tools).

While the Council supports the Commission’s plans for building its internal capacity, tools and methods
for gender mainstreaming,
the allocation of adequate human resources within
Commission delegations in ACP countries is the responsibility of the Commission.

it considers

that

(2002/C 134 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2824/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Failure to comply with Community legislation in the construction of the Spanish high-speed train

passing through Osera del Ebro

In December 1999 the mayor of the town of Osera del Ebro submitted a complaint (99/5330) to the
Commission on the grounds of an infringement of EU environmental legislation in the modified route for
the Zaragoza-Lleida stretch of the high-speed railway line which, if the current proposal goes ahead, would
seriously affect the natural area of Soto del Aguilar (hitherto protected).

In view of the fact that:

: Soto del Aguilar is home to species protected by the ‘wild birds’ Directive 79/409 (1) and the ‘habitats’
Directive 92/43 (2) and the Spanish authorities should therefore have included it as an ASPB and SCI
for the purposes of Natura 2000;

: there is a better alternative route (the ‘Northern alternative’) which would not cause any damage to the
environment, but, despite being the first route proposed, it was rejected by the Spanish Government
without any cogent reason being given for the change;

: the Directive on environmental impact assessment 85/337 (3) has not been correctly applied, since the
adverse opinion of the Ministry for the Environment was not taken into account and the project
finally accepted for the current route has serious shortcomings;

: the construction of

from the Cohesion Fund, although
Community funding should never be used to finance projects which do not respect the environment;

the high-speed train receives support

: according to information obtained by the questioner the Spanish Government would be willing to
alter the route once again, but this would only leave undamaged too small a part of the natural area,
which qualifies for continued protection.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in dealing with complaint 99/5330?

C 134 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

What measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities to ensure the
compulsory classification of Soto del Aguilar as an ASPB and SCI and hence to safeguard the ‘wild birds’
and ‘habitats’ directives?

Can the Commission ensure that the current routing for the high-speed train passing through Osera del
Ebro has been determined in compliance with the Directive on environmental impact assessment?

Does the Commission not consider that any funding for the high-speed train project should be frozen until
it is proven that it will not entail any environmental damage?

Is it true that the Commission would be willing to accept a slight variation in the current routing, which
would preserve only a small part of the Soto del Aguilar, although the area qualifies as an ASPB and SCI?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Madrid-Figueres high-speed railway line project will cover a distance of approximately 860 kilometres,
550 km of which are already under construction. The complaint received by the Commission (1) concerns
a 0,5 km stretch through Osera del Ebro.

The complaint alleged misapplication of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) in the form of the rerouting of part of the
Zaragoza-Lleida stretch of the high-speed line along the southern alternative instead of the northern
alternative originally proposed by the Ministry for the Environment and for which an impact assessment
had already been completed.

According to the complaint, the new route would seriously affect site of Community importance (SCI) for
birds No 104 and special protection area (SPA) No 138.

To investigate this complaint, a letter was sent to the Spanish authorities asking for their comments on the
allegations. On analysis of their reply, the Commission found that the high-speed rail project was inside an
important area for bird conservation (SCI No 104) and that 29 % of this site had been designated as an
SPA under the inventory drawn up by the Spanish ornithological society (SEO/Bird/Life).

According to the information available, all the alternatives proposed cross SCI No 104, but the route
originally proposed (the northern alternative) is more favourable from the environmental point of view
since it would have less impact on nesting grounds.

Consequently, since the route chosen by the Spanish authorities was not the most appropriate solution
from the environmental point of view, on 30 October 2000 a letter of formal notice was sent to the
Spanish authorities. They sent a detailed reply, stating the reasons for their choice and giving scientific data
to support it.

The SCI through which the Spanish authorities have routed the high-speed line is severely degraded and
compensatory measures have been proposed by SEO/Bird/Life and approved by the environmental
authorities for the region. They consider that the abovementioned measures are sufficient to offset the
damage caused by construction of a bridge across the river Ebro.

The Commission was notified of the compensatory measures planned. These consist of regeneration of the
damaged part of the habitat, notably by extending the riparian forest by 9 hectares. This scheme will be
coordinated with other work already started on a Life-Nature project a few kilometres from the site.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/119

It must be stressed that the report submitted by the authorities was of extremely high quality, was very
detailed and contained all the information needed to evaluate the scheme: species of trees selected,
reforestation plan, budget, maps, aerial photographs, list of species of birds in the area which will benefit
most, etc.

Under these circumstances, after informing the plaintiff of the foregoing, the Commission decided, on
18 July 2001, to file the matter. There is therefore no reason to suspend the Community support from the
Cohesion Fund for the Madrid-Figueres high-speed line.

The Commission has already taken measures to ensure compliance with the directives mentioned by the
Honourable Member throughout Spain in the parallel case initiated against Spain for non-designation or
incomplete designation of SPAs (case 99/2212).

(1) Complaint No 1999/5330.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2833/01

by Terence Wynn (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 2001)

Subject: French tax provisions for foreign life insurance

Referring to the answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission to Written Question
E-1552/01 (1) (French tax provisions for foreign life insurance) : has the Commission decided whether or
not to issue a reasoned opinion under Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty? If not, why not? If it has
done so, what was the outcome?

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 144.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it did in fact decide to send a reasoned
opinion under Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. It was sent to the French authorities on
25 July 2001. A press release on the subject was issued on 26 July 2001 (1).

The Commission asked the French authorities to amend the tax provisions concerned within two months
of receiving the reasoned opinion.

To date, the Commission has not been informed of any action taken by the French authorities in response
to the reasoned opinion. Consequently, the Commission will shortly decide on the follow-up to these
proceedings.

(1)

IP/01/1106.

(2002/C 134 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2835/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Poland’s accession to the European Union

(12 October 2001)

The Financieele Dagblad of 27 September 2001 reported the following comments made by a senior
Commission official: ‘The enlargement without Poland would be the same as the introduction of the euro
without Germany’.