WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Prevention of violation of the Habitats, Birds and EIR Directives in connection with recommencement of work on the Deurganck dock.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Flanders (Belgium), building permit, environmental impact, environmental protection, infringement of EU law, protection of animal life, public works, regional planning

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/35

(2003/C 52 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Prevention of violation of the Habitats, Birds and EIR Directives in connection with recom-

mencement of work on the Deurganck dock

On 14 December 2001 the Flemish Parliament adopted a decree declaring that the works, operations and
facilities required to construct the Deurganck dock on the left bank of the Scheldt and bring it into
operation were of urgent general and strategic interest (Belgian Official Journal, 20 December 2001).
the following
In accordance with Article 6(2),
compensatory measures have been taken: (a) area for meadow birds located in an area of controlled
flooding in the Kruibeke-Bazel-Rupelmonde zone; (b) Paardenschor salt marsh; (c) creek at the level of
Paardenschor;
including an
environmental buffer zone; (f) areas for meadow birds in ‘Doelpolder noord’ (V) and in the temporary
meadow birds area ‘Putten West’ (ZTA); (g) improvement of the environmental quality of polders in plots
belonging to the Flemish government; (h) temporary and permanent management of lakes in ‘Putten Plas’
and other lakes in Z2; (i) temporary installation of ‘Zwijnrecht’, ‘ex-Doeldok’ and ‘Z2’ discharge areas.

(d) freshwater creek in the buffer zone (Zuid-West B);

the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (1),

(e) Drydijck pool

(3) and (4) of

Article 4 of the decree states that the Flemish government must ensure the proper application of the EIR
Directive 85/337/EEC (2), Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC (3) and Articles 6(2) to (4) of
the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, before granting the necessary building permits.

In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Birds Directive 79/409/EEC and Article 6(4) of the Habitats
Directive 92/43/EEC, applicants for urban planning permission are also required to take all the necessary
steps to ensure that compensatory measures are carried out and to guarantee that the general environment
of Natura 2000 is maintained.

On 29 March 2002 the Flemish Parliament confirmed the planning permissions granted by the Flemish
government on 18 March 2002 pursuant to the Decree of 14 December 2001.

Can the European Commission say whether or not, in the light of this new situation, it is prepared to
withdraw the notice of infringement of 20 March 2002 on the grounds of infringements of Article 4(1) of
the Birds Directive and Article 6(3) and(4) of the Habitats Directive relating to the Flemish government’s
decision of 8 September 2000 concerning the third amendment to the Sint-Niklaas-Lokeren district plan
and the harbour extension measures included therein?

If not, can the Commission say what additional measures of the Flemish Parliament and the Flemish
government need to take in order to comply with the requirements imposed by the European Union?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission has been informed about the facts raised by the Honourable Member during a meeting
with the Flemish regional authorities on 26 October 2001 and from documentation received from the
Flemish regional authorities after this meeting.

The Commission notes that the compensation programme mentioned by the Honourable Member is
related to the infringement procedures that were started after complaints were received concerning the
building of two docks in the Special Protection Area (SPA) ‘Schorren en Polders van de Beneden-Schelde’,
the ‘Verrebroeck’-dock (case A-98/4669) and the ‘Deurganck’-dock (case A-98/5005).

C 52 E/36

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission wishes to point out that the Letter of formal Notice of 20 March 2002 mentioned by the
Honourable Member concerns a separate infringement case (A-00/2212)
relating to the Flemish
government’s decision of 8 September 2000 concerning the second revision of the Sint-Niklaas-Lokeren
zoning plan and the harbour extension measures included therein. The subject matter of this case is the
long term objective of
the entire SPA to portuary and other
infrastructure, as laid out in the revised zoning plan.

the Flemish authorities to convert

Given the above mentioned elements, the information about the compensation plans related to the docks
cases has no influence on the status of the cases concerning the zoning plan.

(2003/C 52 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1091/02

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE)
and Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

Subject: Arms embargo against Israel

(18 April 2002)

The Council has imposed arms embargoes against a number of countries including Afghanistan, Burma,
China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Libya, Sierra Leone, Sudan and, most recently, Zimbabwe
(18 February 2002).

The EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports was adopted 8 June 1998 with the aim of ‘setting high
common standards’ for arms exports. Criteria include respect for human rights in the country of final
destination. In particular, Member States will ‘not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the
proposed export might be used for internal repression’, including, inter alia,
‘… summary or arbitrary
executions, …’ (criterion 2b). Other criteria include the existence of tensions or armed conflicts, and
whether there is a clear risk that the arms would be used ‘to assert by force a territorial claim’ (criterion 4)
and compliance with international commitments, including humanitarian law (criterion 6).

In its conclusions at the Barcelona European Council, the EU repeated its condemnation of Israel by stating
that Israel ‘must immediately withdraw its military forces from areas placed under control of the PA,
stop-extra-judicial killings, lift the closures and restrictions, freeze settlements and respect international
law.’

In the light of the above, does the Council intend to impose an arms embargo on Israel?

If not, does the Council find this consistent with the intention of the EU Code of Conduct and Title V of
the Treaty?

the Council ask the Commission (in accordance with Article 14(4) of

Will
consistency of its arms embargo policy?

the TEU)

to assess the

Reply

(5 November 2002)

The Council does not intend to impose an arms embargo on Israel. It sees no inconsistency between this
position and the Code of Conduct or Title V of the Treaty. As the Honourable Member will be aware, the
Code of Conduct, which is an appropriate instrument for governing the rules on arms exports, does not
carry any obligation to impose arms embargoes on specific countries. Nor does the Council see grounds
for asking the Commission to assess the consistency of its arms embargo policy. The Code of Conduct is
not a binding EU joint action and therefore Article 14(4) TEU is not applicable; moreover, the Commission
is not competent to assess the policies of the Council as a whole or of individual Member States in so far
as their arms exports are concerned.