WRITTEN QUESTION E-2931/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Motorway project A 143 endangering semi-natural countryside.
Date: 2001-10-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, complaint to the Commission, environmental protection, exchange of information, motorway, national implementing measure, road building

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/153

However, before proposing to expand the scope to certain installations for the production and/or storage
of fireworks materials, it is necessary to analyse whether the same objectives cannot be reached through
the implementation of the Seveso II Directive (3), which should be revised as previously mentioned in the
answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-1568/01 (4).

The March 2001 workshop on pyrotechnic and explosive substances, referred to in the above-mentioned
answer, concluded that fireworks pose a challenge in terms of the application of appropriate safety
provisions to storage installations. In particular, concern over the increased hazard that may result when
in heavy confinement, or are stored together with highly explosive
pyrotechnics are stored in bulk,
materials is relatively recent. Some competent authorities may not be aware of these concerns and there
does not yet exist enough knowledge of how and when these hazards are created to form a consensus on
appropriate remedies. It might be useful for Member States to exchange information on best practices for
fireworks storage to support the efforts of licensing authorities to impose appropriate safety requirements
on fireworks installations.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.
(2) Available from http://eippcb. jrc. es/pages/FActivities. htm.
(3) Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous

substances, OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(4) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001, p. 148.

(2002/C 134 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2931/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Motorway project A 143 endangering semi-natural countryside

1. What view does the Commission take of the plans to build federal motorway ‘A 143 = Halle West
bypass’, Section AS Bennstedt (B80) = AD Wallwitz (A 14) in the light of the complaint of 4 May 2000
submitted by the German Nature Conservation Society (complaint number 2000/415, SG(2000) A/6157)
and the Federal Republic of Germany’s failure fully to transpose the fauna, flora and habitats (FFH)
Directive (see the latest judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 September 2001 in case C-71/99)?

2. What view does the Commission take in particular of:

(a)

the significant effects on FFH sites of the planned motorway, and the FRG’s failure to take account of
such effects in concluding its route determination procedure?

(b)

the threat to priority species and habitats in the FFH sites concerned?

(c)

the failure so far to involve the public in the assessment of implications for the FFH sites (Article 6(3),
last clause of the FFH Directive)?

(d)

the accusation of an infringement of Article 6(4), first sentence, of the FFH Directive through lack of
assessment or inadequate consideration of alternative solutions?

(e) What views has the Federal Government expressed so far on the complaint by the Nature

Conservation Society?

(f) Does the Commission intend to initiate proceedings against the Federal Republic of Germany for

infringement of the Treaty through its plans to build the A 143 and, if so, when?

C 134 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 2001)

According to the information available to the Commission, the planned motorway ‘A 143 Westumfahrung
Halle’ will be located in the area of the site ‘Porphyrkuppenlandschaft nordwestlich von Halle’, which
includes the sites ‘Porphyrlandschaft bei Brachwitz’ and ‘Porphyrlandschaft bei Grimritz’ and is proposed as
a Site of Community Importance under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1). This site originally excluded a
the German
corridor,
Government formally included this corridor in its proposal of Sites of Community Importance.

in which the motorway is now to be located. However,

in October 2000,

The site hosts priority grassland habitats mentioned in Annex I of the Habitats Directive (*6110 and
*6120), which are likely to be affected by the planned motorway. The planning authorities have foreseen
mitigation measures with a view to limiting the effects of the motorway on the environment.

The question of whether or not the effects of the motorway on the conservation objectives of the site
‘Porphyrkuppenlandschaft nordwestlich von Halle’ are likely to be significant and if a proper assessment of
implications pursuant to Article 6 paragraph 3 of the Habitats Directive has been carried out, is currently
being assessed by the Commission in the framework of a complaint procedure. By their letter of
11 September 2001, the Commission has asked the German Government to give its view on this case
within two months of receipt of the letter. The German reply is currently being awaited.

Once the German answer has arrived and has been assessed, the Commission will decide on the further
handling of this case, ensuring that applicable Community law is respected. The complainants will be
informed accordingly.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of nautral habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 134 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2932/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Danish ‘feta’ export fraud

The Court of Auditors’ Special Report 7/2001 reveals that the cases of fraud investigated by OLAF
included the 1998 export to North Korea of some 3 200 tonnes of Danish ‘feta’ manufactured from cow’s
milk. Export refunds of 2,23 million euro were paid despite the fact that the ‘feta’ was more than
12 months past its sell-by date and the refunds amounted to more than double the selling price.

In addition to the case of fraud, there is also the matter of discrediting the name ‘feta’, which in 1998 was
a Greek product with protected designation of origin and which Denmark could use only for a transitional
period. Can the Commission answer the following:

1. How will it respond to the discrediting of the name ‘feta’ caused by the export of the Danish product?

2. Will the above case of fraud be taken into account in reconsidering the proposal to secure the status

of feta as a product with protected designation of origin?