WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/02 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Extraction of gravel in Area 49 under the Habitats Directive: Nordrügensche Boddenlandschaft (Neuendorfer Wiek) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financing, Germany, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, exploitation of resources, natural resources

C 301 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

request repayment of the following subsidies: DEM 260,57 million from Pilz Albrechts GmbH, DEM 166,3
million from CD Albrechts GmbH and DEM 426,87 million from Logistik Center Albrechts GmbH.

Is it possible that part of that sum has already been repaid from the bankrupt’s assets of one of the

1.
undertakings referred to above?

2.

If so, what was the amount repaid and in respect of which demand (i.e. from which undertaking)?

3. What explanation did the German authorities give when the sum was repaid?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Different recovery amounts in relation to the Pilz Albrechts GmbH, the CD Albrechts GmbH (hereafter
‘CDA’) and the Logistic Center Albrechts GmbH (hereafter ‘LCA’) were distinguished by the Honourable
Member. Therefore, it needs to be clarified that Commission Decision 2000/796/EC of 21 June 2000 on
State aid granted by Germany to CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia (notified under
document number C(2000) 1728 (1)) foresees in its Article 2(3) that for the purpose of recovery ‘the
include CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH and LCA Logistic Center Albrechts
term’beneficiaries‘shall
the
GmbH as well as any other undertaking to which R.E. Pilz GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG’s,
Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG’s and Pilz Albrechts GmbH’s assets and/or infrastructure
have been transferred or will be transferred in such a way as to evade the consequences of this Decision’.
This means that all companies are jointly and severally liable for the recovery of all illegal aid amounting
to DEM 426,87 million. The recovery obligation further includes the payment of interest calculated on the
basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant-equivalent of regional aids.

On the basis of the information submitted by Germany the current situation is the following:

(cid:1) Up to now repayments of LCA amounting to EUR 3 138 million as well as of CDA amounting to
EUR 7,06 million were made, i.e. altogether EUR 10 194 million have been recovered. Aid amounting
to EUR 208 062 million still needs to be recovered.

(cid:1) With the exception of CDA all companies involved are in bankruptcy. Except for an amount of
EUR 10.89 million all outstanding recovery amounts were registered into the insolvency estates of the
insolvent companies. Up to now, a repayment from the insolvency assets was not made, since the
relevant procedures are not completed. Vis-a-vis CDA the repayment of the outstanding amount of
EUR 208 062 million has not yet been claimed by the German authorities.

(cid:1) The Commission believes that with respect to the amount of aid to be recovered as well as the joint
and several liability of the beneficiaries the negative decision of 21 June 2000 does not leave any
ambiguity. Therefore, the Commission has asked Germany to pursue the recovery of all amounts
which in the decision were classified as incompatible aid against all companies referred to as
beneficiaries, i.e. also against CDA. The Commission will continue to seek that Germany effectively
pursues recovery of all amounts against all beneficiaries.

(1) OJ L 318, 16.12.2000.

(2002/C 301 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/02

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Extraction of gravel in Area 49 under the Habitats Directive: Nordrügensche Boddenlandschaft

(Neuendorfer Wiek) in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Over the next 30 years, 5,1 million tonnes of gravel is to be industrially extracted from a 29 ha site in an
inland lagoon on the island of Rügen (Neuendorfer Wiek). The Stralsund Mining Authority granted

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/79

that

the fact

the extraction will

authorisation on 12 November 1999 (official approval of the plan). That authorisation failed to take into
account
take place inside Area 49 under the Habitats Directive:
Nordrügensche Boddenlandschaft. The Neuendorfer Wiek will also be damaged through substance input
and adversely affected by noise. Habitats such as xeric sand calcareous grasslands (Type 6120) and xeric
grassland and dry turf will be directly affected, and salt meadows indirectly affected, as will the habitat of
valuable fauna, including the resting grounds of 20 000 migratory birds, a significant feeding area used by
three pairs of sea eagles and one of the most important sandwich tern colonies in the unique Baltic Sea
population.

1.

(a)

Is the European Commission aware of this destruction and/or planned encroachment on Area 49
under the Habitats Directive?

(b) Will the Commission initiate proceedings against Germany? If not, how else will it react to the

destruction of Europe’s nature heritage?

2.

(a) Does the Commission take the view that a project, albeit covered by Annex II to the EIA Directive
85/337/EEC (1), must nevertheless be subject to a statutory EIA if an area covered by the Habitats
Directive is involved, and does it consider that separate inquiries should be carried out?

(b) Does the Commission take the view that the Land Government and the administrative authorities
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern must protect areas covered by the Habitats Directive and prevent
encroachment thereon and the destruction thereof?

(c)

Is the Commission aware that, in the approval procedure referred to above, the compilation of
environmental data was inadequate and that the data was not evaluated on a scientific basis, with
the result that the zero option was not reviewed in sufficient detail? In the Commission’s view,
what must of necessity be done in this instance?

3. Does the Commission know whether the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Land Government has, directly
or indirectly (i.e. via the infrastructure), subsidised this project from the Structural Funds? If so, will
the Commission demand repayment of such sums paid from the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

1.

(a) The Commission was informed on the planned gravel extraction project in the context of a

complaint.

(b) The Commission requested and received further information from Germany on the planned gravel
extraction project. This information is currently under assessment. Following the results of this
assessment, the Commission will decide if or not it will open an infringement procedure on this
case against Germany.

2.

(a) Following Article 6, paragraph 3 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (hereafter the Habitats Directive)
any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a site covered by the Habitats Directive,
shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site, in view of the site’s
conservation objectives. The Directive does not exclude the possibility to conduct this particular
inquiry in the framework of a broader environmental impact assessment (EIA) carried out for
example in application of the Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as modified by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

(b) Areas which, under Article 4 (1) of

the Habitats Directive, have been proposed as Sites of
Community Importance are subject to the protection regime set out in Article 6(2) to (4) of the
Habitats Directive. These provisions notably aim at avoiding the deterioration of natural habitats
and the habitats of species as well as the disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
designated, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the objectives of the
Habitats Directive. The provisions are applicable to the particular proposed site of Community
importance in the ‘Neuendorfer Wieck’.

C 301 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(c) So far the Commission has not yet concluded its evaluation if the protection regime set out in
Article 6 (2)
the Habitats Directive has been correctly applied by the competent
authorities or not. An investigation of alternative solutions for the project would in fact be
necessary only if the assessment mentioned under 2a. came to the conclusion that the project
would have a significant negative impact on the site’s conservation objectives.

to (4) of

3. The Commission has been informed by the managing authority in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, that
the project described has not been co-funded by the Structural Funds. Neither has there any project
been submitted for funding in relation to gravel extraction in the Neuendorfer Wieck so far, nor does
the managing authority know about intentions to ask for funding.

Furthermore, the regional authorities have informed the Commission, that such a project proposal would
not be eligible under the current selection criteria. In any case, all operations funded through the Structural
Funds have to fully comply with the requirements of Community legislation including those set up in the
Directives on EIA and on Habitats as referred to above.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1052/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Plan for waste treatment plant in Los Arcos (Navarre, Spain)

(17 April 2002)

In September 2001 a scheme was submitted in Los Arcos (Navarre, Spain) for a large-scale industrial waste
treatment plant, which would be 2 km long and 650 metres wide, occupying an area of 1 250 000 m2 in
order to store ‘special’ types of waste indefinitely.

This scheme is promoted by Befesa, a branch of the Abengoa company, and its characteristics are similar
to those of the same company’s plant in Nerva (Huelva province) (cid:1) a plant which became famous some
time ago thanks to a series of fires provoked by the deposits. The inhabitants of this part of Navarre are
aware that
the company has on several occasions been subjected to penalties for the improper
management of toxic waste at its Cartagena plant, which is also similar to the planned one. Recently
some 30 000 people demonstrated in the locality, in a clear rejection of the Los Arcos plant.

Is the Commission aware of this project, and can it state whether there has been an application for
Community funds for its realisation?

Can the Commission state whether the following directives are applicable to this case:

(cid:1) Directive 85/337/EEC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the

environment;

(cid:1) Directive 91/156/EEC (2) amending Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste, which obliges the Member
States to ensure the recovery or destruction of waste without endangering human health and without
using processes or methods which could damage the environment;

(cid:1) Directive 96/82/EC (4) on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances;

(cid:1) Directive 84/360/EEC (5) on the combating of air pollution from industrial plants?

What action does the Commission intend to take in this case to ensure compliance with Community law
and, specifically, the above directives?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(4) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(5) OJ L 188, 16.7.1984, p. 20.