WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/02 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Commission. Conservation of wild birds directive.
Date: 2002-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, environmental law, hunting regulations, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, protection of animal life

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/49

With reference to the earlier reply given on this subject the Commission would point out that agreement
was reached at political level upon both the mentioned Directive and the Framework Decision during the
Council meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 28/29 May 2001.

However, contrary to reasonable expectations, a formal adoption of the two instruments has not yet been
possible due to parliamentary scrutiny reservations of two Member States, one of which has only recently
lifted its reservation.

(2002/C 301 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0627/02

by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (PSE) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Conservation of wild birds directive

In 1999 the Commission initiated proceedings for failure to act against the Federal Republic of Germany
in response to the incomplete transposition of Directive 79/409/EEC (1)
(action No 1999/4095)
(conservation of wild birds directive) in connection with the federal German hunting laws. Although the
Commission has already sent letters of formal notice to the Federal German Government, the latter has not
even amended the federal regulation governing hunting seasons, which still authorises the hunting of birds,
even during migration back from their wintering areas and during the breeding season. Instead, the Federal
German Government has asked the Commission to set up a working party with the task of drawing up
interpretations of the relevant provisions and thus highlighting the scope for circumventing the ban on
spring hunting (Article 7 of the conservation of wild birds directive).

1. Who are the members of this working party?

2. What time-frame has the Commission laid down for the drafting of the interpretations by the
working party?

Does the Commission take the view that the judgments concerning Article 9 of the directive already
3.
handed down by the CJEC and national administrative courts are not sufficient, so that additional
‘interpretations’ are genuinely needed?

4. What measures does the Commission plan to take in order to prompt
the Federal German
Government, which has thus far merely paid lip service to the need to transpose the conservation of wild
birds directive, to speed up the transposition process?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2002)

The establishment of a working group to assist
the Commission with developing guidance on
interpretation of the hunting provisions of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds, is at the initiative of the Commission and has been approved by
all Member States, within the framework of the Committee for the Adaptation to Technical and Scientific
Progress for the Birds Directive.

This is a logical continuation of earlier work on the key concepts of Article 7(4) relating to ‘Period of
Reproduction and prenuptial Migration of Annex II Bird Species in the EU’, now completed.

The Working group is composed of experts

1.
the Federation of
Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the Union (FACE) and official nominees of Germany,
France, Italy, Austria, Finland and United Kingdom.

from BirdLife International,

C 301 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

2.

The intention is to provide a document of the Commission during 2002.

3.
The guide will be fully in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on hunting and
based on sound scientific principles. However, there are still issues related to the practice of hunting for
which the Court has not given interpretation (e.g. the French Conseil d’Etat has recently referred questions
relating to the possible use of Article 9 derogations for hunting to the Court). The Commission,
in
preparing the guide, has stated from the outset that definitive interpretation of environmental legislation is
the role of the Court.

The Commission is pursuing the alleged infringement of the Birds Directive by a number of provisions in
the German Federal and regional hunting legislation in the framework of case 1999/4095. On
20 December 2001 the Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court. Since this decision
was taken, new developments in the German legislation intervened or are imminent, which the
Commission must assess before the decision to apply to the Court can be implemented.

(2002/C 301 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0639/02

by Chantal Cauquil (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2002)

Subject: Death of dolphins in Community waters

The Commission’s reply of 15 January 2002 to question P-3509/01 (1) has given rise to the following
observations and questions regarding the application of Community rules:

(cid:1) In accordance with Articles 11 and 12(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2),

is the legal
responsibility of Member States to implement Community rules on the surveillance and monitoring
of fishing activities relating to the incidental capture of cetaceans. In this context, Member States were
the
required to report
provisions of the aforementioned directive. The Commission has noted that some Member States,
including France, have not respected this obligation. The same state of affairs is reported each year by
the Commission.

to the Commission, by 30 September 2001, on the implementation of

it

(cid:1) Does the Commission, whose role in this matter is to ensure the effective implementation of the
provisions in force, have sufficient coercive power, freedom and will to force Member States to
implement and respect its own directives?

(cid:1) Is the Commission in a position to say which Member States did not fulfil their obligations in 1999,
in particular the obligation to provide the Commission with a report on the

2000 and 2001,
monitoring of the incidental capture of dolphins?

(cid:1) Last December the Commission organised a four-day meeting with the Fisheries Directorate-General,
the Environment Directorate-General and its Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for
Fisheries in order to give an updated overview of relevant scientific material and in order to find a
solution to the problem.

(cid:1) What was the outcome of this meeting?

(cid:1) The reply of 24 July 2000 to question E-2105/00 (3) states that ‘the Member of the Commission in
charge of Fisheries indicated his intention to give priority to further research and to consider what
might be done in the immediate future’.

(cid:1) Could the Commission communicate the results of research carried out since 24 July 2000?

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 239.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001, p. 150.