WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/02 by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission. Airport safety.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, Italy, air transport, airport, civil aviation, safety standard, transport safety

C 172 E/162

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

As the common hare is not one of the species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3), responsibility for regulating
the capture and transport of this species lies with the Member States and the candidate countries for
accession. The Commission has no power to intervene.

The common hare Lepus capensis (europaeus) is one of the species of wild animal listed in Annex III to
the Berne Convention. The parties to this Convention, including Poland and France, must therefore take
the appropriate and necessary legislative and regulatory measures to protect the species. Such measures
include banning the use of non-selective methods of capture and regulating the transport of captured
animals. The catching of hares using nets as reported by the Honourable Member would therefore be
contrary to the provisions of the Convention.

The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) which is situated in the European Union but independent
of the Union, has engaged itself contractually to fulfil all national legal and ethical requirements. The BPRC
confirmed to the Commission in July 2001 that it has the permission at local level to conduct biomedical
research with non-human primates.

The Commission does not intend to exclude the BPRC from participation in Community funded projects
as long as the relevant authorisations from national authorities have been obtained.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 172 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0171/02

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Airport safety

I should like to know whether the Board of Directors of the national civil aviation agency has complied
with European legislation on airport safety. At the beginning of 2002, following the accident which had
taken place at Linate airport on 8 October 2001, a proposal was submitted to the government for a
reorganisation of the bodies responsible for air transport safety ; ENAC (National Civil Aviation Agency)
and ENAV (National Flight Assistance Agency). The proposal emphasises and reinforces, among other
things, the status of the airport director, appointed by ENAC, who at present has a rather weak position.

On 21 December 2001, however, the ENAC Board of Directors turned this whole approach on its head by
bringing several airports under the responsibility of a single director. A particularly worrying aspect is the
arrangement introduced at Naples airport where it has been decided to transfer the current director, who
has had thirty years’ experience of this specific post, and to replace him with the head of the ENAC office
which is responsible for airworthiness certification. This involves amalgamating posts which have hitherto
the heads of
been allocated to people with totally different professional backgrounds. Until now,
certification offices throughout Italy have been aeronautical engineers while airport directors normally
have qualifications in law.

A number of members of the Italian parliament immediately tabled questions, calling for an explanation of
the objectives of the ENAC Board of Directors’ decisions, especially in the light of the planned reform of
the sector.

In view of the above, would the Commission state whether it is aware of this initiative which has not only
baffled political circles but is also causing concern among members of civil society about the safety of air
travel, a subject to which the European Parliament has devoted much attention?

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that such decisions to amalgamate posts do
not create disruption and additional risks in what is already a difficult situation in Italy?

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/163

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2002)

With reference to the proposal that has been presented to the Council of Ministers in Italy, known as the
‘Commissione Riggio’ report, the Commission understands that it has not yet been discussed and no date
has been indicated for the possible debate.

The Commission is developing a regulatory framework to reinforce civil aviation safety, principally
through the establishment of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). At present airport safety is not
part of EASA’s responsibility but the Commission intends to address this subject at a later stage through
the possible extension of the scope of EASA’s operations.

(2002/C 172 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0175/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Exchange of letters with the Netherlands concerning the Iron Rhine

The Iron Rhine is the symbolic name given to the rail
link between the port of Antwerp and the
Ruhrgebiet. Belgium is very keen to see this rail link revived, but the Netherlands seems to be allowing the
project to drag on. Invoking the European Habitats and Birds Directives, Mrs Netelenbos, Netherlands
Minister for Transport and Water Management, is demanding that a tunnel be built to take the line under a
nature reserve near Roermond. The Commission has apparently written to the Belgian authorities
concerned,
its opinion. The Belgian Minister for
Transport acknowledges that she has received such a letter, but her Netherlands counterpart states she has
not been informed.

the Netherlands and Germany informing them of

Is it necessary to build a tunnel under the nature reserve near Roermond, pursuant to the European

1.
Habitats and Birds Directives?

Has the Commission in actual fact written to Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands about this

2.
matter?

3.

If so, what was the substance of its letter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

The nature protection Directives (Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds (1) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora (2)) do not give a mandate to the Commission to take decisions,
in the
framework of mitigation of compensation measures related to the effects of infrastructure projects, about
the necessity to build tunnels under any of the sites designated as part of the Natura 2000 network or
belonging to Member States’ own national nature reserves.

The three Member States involved in the Iron Rhine reactivation project (Belgium, Germany, and the
Netherlands) requested a meeting with the Commission to expose their views. This meeting took place in
Brussels on 5 July 2001. At their request, Directorate general Environment sent on 19 September 2001 to
the delegation leaders present at the meeting a written account of the answers it gave to Member States’
questions, with additional remarks about certain points that were discussed and some general observations.

A copy of the letter of 19 September 2001 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.