WRITTEN QUESTION P-0154/02 by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission. Environmental disaster in Caserta.
Date: 2002-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, countryside conservation, degradation of the environment, environmental impact, environmental protection, heritage protection, mining operation

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/83

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council is well-aware of the European Parliament’s concern on this issue, as on others concerning
human rights in Vietnam. It has conveyed those concerns to the Vietnamese authorities, both through the
meetings of the EC-Vietnam Joint Co-operation Committee and through the contacts established by EU
Missions in Hanoi with the MFA and other relevant Ministeries and bodies.

(2002/C 205 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0153/02

by Franz Turchi (UEN) to the Council

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Question of 19 October 2001 by Francesco Turchi

Considering that:

2 the deadline for replying to a priority written question is three weeks from the date of the question’s

official notification;

2 on 19 October 2001, the above-mentioned Member tabled a priority written question (P-3036/01) to

the Council, on the murder of Afghan military commander Ahmad Shah Massood;

2 to date (22 January 2002) no reply has been received from the Council;

2 the international situation remains extremely worrying and unstable.

Would the Council, especially the Belgian and UK authorities, say why they have not yet replied to the
above question, and whether they would not agree that, by failing to do so, they are giving others good
reason to suspect that they care little about the respect due to representatives of the European Parliament
or are unable to come up with convincing arguments to prove that they did not fail to take appropriate
action in this matter.

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would remind the Honourable Member of the replies it has already given on the points of
procedure raised (please see the replies to questions E-1299/01, E-1300/01, P-1541/01 and E-2384/01).

Regarding question P-3036/01, the Council would inform the Honourable Member that the reply was
adopted on 12 February 2002.

(2002/C 205 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0154/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Environmental disaster in Caserta

Caserta is a city famous throughout Europe for the Reggia Vanvitelliana palace and its magnificent park
which is thought to be the equal of Versailles, and which are now surrounded by what can only be called
an environmental disaster.

C 205 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

This area, which must be considered part of both the European and the world artistic heritage, has for the
past fifty years been the scene of unscrupulous speculation which has disfigured the landscape around the
eighteenth-century Bourbon palace.

Caserta is surrounded by the Tifatini range of hills, an area of great historical and artistic importance
which is also rich in flora and fauna.

The hills bear the scars of reckless quarrying (as many as 30 limestone and tufa quarries were opened in
the Caserta area, 6 of which are still in operation).

The quarrying carried out in the area surrounding important historical sites such as the Reggia, the royal
village of San Leucio, the medieval old town of Caserta and the monumental bridge over the Maddaloni
valley has altered the landscape to such an extent that the area’s natural environment and artistic heritage
are at risk of being irreparably damaged.

While the removal of entire hillsides continues unchecked, the disused quarries now form a desolate moon
landscape next to the Reggia Vanvitelliana, one of the most visited sites in Europe. How does the
Commission intend to go about putting an end to the steady destruction of the landscape in this area?
Would it not agree that it should have a study conducted into the feasibility of restoring a landscape
which, thanks to the writings of Goethe, made the Bourbon site’s reputation, to its former splendour?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member have to be examined from two different angles: the
possible opening of new quarries and the recovery of former quarrying areas.

Concerning new quarries, Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, modified by Council Directive
97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997, 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
(environmental impact assessment (EIA)). 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.

Some of the quarrying activities mentioned by the Honourable Member might also have a significant
impact on a site proposed by Italy as a Site of Community Importance under Council Directive
92/43/EEC (3) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, ‘Monte
Tifata’. (IT8010016).

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
thereon, either
or necessary to the management of
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

The above mentioned provision is not yet 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 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.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/85

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

to take all necessary measures,

the Treaty,

Concerning the recovery of former quarrying areas, including eventual feasibility studies, the initiative has
to come from the Member States, and launching a feasibility study is not within the competencies of the
Commission. Such measures can be financed through Structural Funds, if they are provided for in the
Regional Operational Plan. The LIFE financial instrument (4), and in particular LIFE-Nature, is dedicated to
the implementation of the Natura 2000 network. For those quarries located inside a proposed Site of
Community Importance, LIFE funds could therefore be used to restore the ecological value of the site.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the Parliament and of the Council, of 17 July 2000, concerning the Financial

Instrument for the Environment (LIFE), OJ L 192, 28.7.2000.

(2002/C 205 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0163/02

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2002)

Subject: Sparkling wine production in Italy and Austria

’Prosecco’ semi-sparkling wines sold by Italian firms exceed the maximum limit in respect of pressure of
semi-sparkling wine clearly laid down in EU wine legislation (maximum 2,5 bar). This infringement was
detected in Germany and an appropriate complaint made to Italy. The German methods of measurement
used were apparently called into question by the Italian authorities and the matter shelved. Italian firms
therefore continue to be permitted to sell proseccos with a pressure of more than 2,5 bar.

The addition of gold leaf to sparkling wines has been banned throughout the EU. However, Austrian
sparkling wine producers have now been given special permission to conduct a large-scale trial. As a
result, Austrian firms are now selling sparkling wine containing gold leaf without facing competition.

Is the Commission aware of these facts?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to stop the maximum limit in respect of pressure of
semi-sparkling wine being exceeded in Italy?

Who gave special permission for a large-scale trial of sparkling wine containing gold leaf in Austria, and
does the Commission consider that this trial contravenes competition rules in the European Union?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Having checked with the national authorities, the Commission is now in a position to clarify the issues
raised by the Honourable Member.