WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/01 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Construction of a landing stage and a marina in the Basso Garda SCI.
Date: 2001-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, harbour installation, impact study

C 147 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

As regards victims, Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, of 15 March 2001 on the standing of
victims in criminal proceedings (1) imposes obligations on the Member States as regards communication of
safeguards, specific assistance to victims, compensation and mediation. These obligations are to be
implemented over a time period ranging from March 2002 to March 2006.

The Commission Green Paper, Compensation to crime victims, dated 28 September 2001 (2) considers
payment by the State to victims.

As regards suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings, there are plans for assessing and improving
compliance with existing human rights instruments, principally the European Convention on Human
Rights, and for devising measures to increase compliance where basic human rights are not being
respected.

The Commission plans an extensive consultation on procedural safeguards in the period January-May
2002, followed by a Commission Communication scheduled for May/June 2002 outlining measures to be
taken by all Member States to ensure that the interests of suspects and defendants are protected.

(1) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
(2) COM(2001) 536 final.

(2002/C 147 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Construction of a landing stage and a marina in the Basso Garda SCI

The Castelnuovo del Garda local authority has approved a project involving the construction of a landing
stage at Ronchi for vessels belonging to the Navigarda shipping company (see the authority’s report of
proceedings No 19 of 3 February 2000 (1)). The coastal strip at Ronchi is part of the Basso Garda Site of
Community Importance (IT3210018). No environmental impact assessment has been carried out. As stated
in question E-2653/00 (2), the landing stage would be for the exclusive use of visitors to the Gardaland
SpA theme park, to the extent that it would effectively be an extension of the park.

The Basso Garda SCI is also affected by plans for a marina at Pioppi, in the Peschiera del Garda district, the
local authority of which has approved a comprehensive programme submitted by the promoter, Nautica
(see the authority’s report of proceedings No 99 of 18 December 2000 (3)). The project
Pioppi srl
comprises a marina for motorboats, a car park and an adjoining beach, and would involve the destruction
of the vegetation along the lake shore, the ecological importance of which was one of the main reasons for
creating a SCI. The tourist development of the Basso Garda area has drastically reduced the size of the
shore areas which are still reasonably unspoilt. The increased use of motorboats as new marinas have been
built has had a serious effect on the lake area encompassed by the SCI (which extends over 750 hectares,
mostly covering the lake itself), another factor being that the site comprises shallow waters with a muddy
sediment in which oxygenation is very slow. In the district of Peschiera alone there are already four
marinas (Fornaci, Bergamini, Cappuccini and Nuovo).

1.
Does the Commission not consider that the landing stage in Ronchi is to be regarded as an extension
to the Gardaland theme park and should thus be subject to environmental impact assessment and to
Directive 97/11/EC (4)? Does it not
to an
environmental impact assessment as required under Directive 92/43/EEC (5)?

therefore think that such a project should be subject

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/153

Does the Commission not think that the plans for a marina in Pioppo should also be subject to an
2.
impact assessment (pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC) and to environmental impact assessment (pursuant to
Directive 97/11/EC)?

(1) Deliberations relating to the award of a contract for the construction of the new landing stage in Ronchi. Appended

are the authorisations granted by the local authority’s buildings committee.

(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 68.
(3) Deliberations relating to the approval of the proposed programme for the redevelopment of the Pioppi area.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

The project for construction of a landing stage for vessels at ‘Ronchi’ on ‘Lago di Garda’ is not included in
any of the classes of projects listed in the Annexes of 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), whether before
or after amendment by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997. Therefore, the directive does not
apply.

Should the project for construction of a landing stage for vessels at Ronchi be considered an extension of
the Gardaland theme park project and should this extension be considered as likely to have significant
adverse effects on the environment, this project could be considered as falling within class 13 of Annex II
of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC. However, the information given by the
Honourable Member does not give any element to consider that the project for a landing stage is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In addition, the documents transmitted by the
Honourable Member in annex (text of the ‘Deliberazione della Giunta comunale di Castelnuovo del
Garda @ Verona’, Affidamento incarico professioneale per la costruzione del nuovo pontile in località
Ronchi, progettazione definitiva-esecutiva, of 3 February 2000 including the text of ‘Convenzione per
conferimento incarico’) do not mention any connection between the project and the Gardaland park.

As regards the agreement-programme including the construction of a marina at Pioppi (Peschiera del
Garda @ Verona), the Commission considers that programmes and plans are not covered by Directive
85/337/EEC whether before or after amendment by Directive 97/11/EC. On the basis of the information
given by the Honourable Member, at present, it cannot be deduced that a project for the construction of a
marina at Pioppi has been granted a development consent under Directive 85/337/EEC, whether before or
after amendment by Directive 97/11/EC, without complying with the obligations of the environmental
impact assessment (EIA) Directive.

In any event, no breach for lack of compliance with Community EIA legislation can be identified as
regards projects for marinas under the Italian applicable legislation (legislation of Regione Veneto, Legge
Regionale 26 marzo 1999 No 10 ‘Disciplina dei contenuti e delle procedure di valutazione d’impatto
ambientale modificata da Lagge Regionale’ 27 dicembre 2000 No 24). Marínas are project of Annex II of
directive 85/337/EEC, as amended (class No 12b). This directive provides that (Article 4, paragraph 2):
Subject to Article 2 (3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a
case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be
made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply
both procedures referred to in (a) and (b). In the Italian legal system, regions are responsible for the
application of EIA legislation to marina projects. Legge Regionale 26 marzo 1999 No 10 of Regione
Veneto, as amended, provides that marinas with docks exceeding 500 meter (m) or with water sheets
exceeding 10 hectares (ha), or with ground areas for more than five ha are directly made the subject of an
EIA procedure and marinas of any size are made subject of an examination in order to determine whether
they have to be made subject of an EIA procedure. Requirements under Annex III of Directive 85/337/EEC,
as modified, are transposed. When internal law complies with Community law and no evidence is given to
presume that it is going to be breached in a specific case, the Commission considers that there are no
grounds for intervention. In such cases, unless it is clearly claimed that, with reference to a specific project,
the competent authorities have no intention to apply the existing provisions or that they have failed to
apply them, the Commission is obliged to conclude that a breach cannot be presumed.

C 147 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

In the light of the above, given the lack of specific grounds on complaint on the application of the EIA
Directive to the specific cases, no breach of this Directive can be identified at present.

Problems of application of Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (2), have also been raised with reference to the project for a landing stage for
vessels at Ronchi and to the agreement-programme for a marina at Pioppi.

The two works fall within the proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI) IT32100018 ‘Basso Garda’
under Directive 92/43/EEC. According to the information given by the Honourable Member, the project
for a marina at Pioppi is to be considered as having a significant impact on the reeds banks (foreste
ripariali a canneto) which are one of the main reasons for which the site has been proposed.

Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC provides for protection requirements with reference to Special Areas of
Conservation (SACs): any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on SACs, either individually or
in combination with other plans or projects, are subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives (valutazione d’incidenza). Under Article 4, paragraph 5,
of Directive 92/43/EEC these requirements are applied also to Sites of Community Importance (SCI) when,
on the basis of the list of proposed Sites of Community Importance (pSCI), they are adopted in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 4 paragraph 2. At present, SACs have not been designated yet and
the list of the SCI has not been adopted yet. However, with reference to proposed Sites of Community
Importance,
in particular when including priority habitat and species, Member States have certain
obligations to act in a way so as to ensure that the aims of the Directive are not jeopardised. Even in the
absence of a Community list, Member States’ authorities are advised to at least abstain from all activities
that may cause a proposed site to deteriorate.

As regards the specific case, the pSCI ‘Basso Garda’ has no priority habitats or species. Reeds banks are not
listed in the ‘Natura 2000 form’ concerning this site and, therefore, it cannot be said that they have been
one of the main reasons for this site to be proposed. No further effect on habitats or species in this site,
other than on reeds banks, has been described or claimed.

Therefore, at present, in the light of the above mentioned legal regime presently in force for proposed Sites
of Community Importance (pSCIs), in the light of the information given by the Honourable Member and in
the absence of more information on how habitats and species may be affected by the works mentioned, no
potential deterioration of the proposed Site of Community Importance IT32100018 ‘Basso Garda’ can be
presumed and no breach of Directive 92/43/EEC can be identified.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 147 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3331/01

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Residues of plant-protection products in fruit

In a number of European countries imports of fruit from other European countries are required to comply
with the standards set by the importing country’s laws on maximum authorised residues of plant-
protection products, even where these differ from standards in the producer countries.

This applies, in particular, to new plant protection products, which not all countries have registered and in
respect of which maximum residue levels vary considerably from one country to another.

This is causing much uncertainty for Community fruit growers, who are obliged to bring their export
products into line with a range of different standards, depending on their countries of destination.