WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/02 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Incomplete incorporation of Directive 97/11/EC by the Spanish state.
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, EU law - national law, Spain, access to information, environmental impact, exchange of information, harbour installation, national implementing measure, project evaluation, public opinion

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/181

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

The Commission is aware of the matters raised by the Honourable Member, having received three
complaints about this project.

To investigate these complaints, the Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the
issues raised and for information on the project.

The Spanish authorities very recently provided an answer which the Commission’s services are currently
analysing. Pending the result of this analysis, the Commission is unable to comment on the possible
incorrect application of the relevant Community legislation.

The Commission will study the information provided by the Honourable Member and take the necessary
action to ensure compliance with the applicable Community law in this case.

The Spanish authorities have, moreover, submitted a request for co-funding from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) under the integrated operational programme for the region of Valencia for the
period 2000-2006 for the project ‘Extension of Castellón Port’. The Community contribution would
amount to € 10 057 000, or 17,4 % of the expected overall cost of the project. This application is currently
being processed.

The Commission would point out that, under Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1), any project co-financed under the ERDF must
be in conformity with Community law, including environmental protection law.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 277 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Incomplete incorporation of Directive 97/11/EC by the Spanish state

Directive 97/11/EC (1) on environmental
that before
development consent for a project is granted the Member State in whose territory it is intended to be
carried out shall ensure that the public and the authorities concerned by the project are given an
opportunity to forward their opinion on the information supplied to the competent authority in that
Member State.

impact assessment

in Article 7(3)(b),

states,

This directive was incorporated into national law by the Spanish state on 10 May 2001, by means of Law
6/2001 (2) (it should in fact have been incorporated no later than 14 March 1999). The provisions of
Article 7(3)(b) do not appear in Law 6/2001. Since this article has not been transposed in that law, it must
be concluded that Article 13 of Royal Decree [RD] 1131/1988 is still in force.

The third paragraph of Article 13 of RD 1131/1988 (3) states that ‘the administrative body responsible for
the environment may consult such persons, institutions and administrations as are liable to be affected by
implementation of the project on the environmental impact which each of those parties believes it is likely
to have’.

To give an example, this Article 13 of RD 1131/1988 has been used in the environmental
impact
assessment procedure relating to the extension of the port of Castellón in the Valencia region (a complaint
was submitted to the Commission by the Valencian association Colla Ecologista d’Almassora; the author of
the present question also put a question on the matter).
for
Environmental Assessment and Quality had not, prior to granting authorisation, given the opportunity to
express an opinion on the project for extension of the port of Castellón to any of a range of parties in the
town of Almassora (4), from the citizens themselves to their organisations and institutions, even including
the municipal council.

the Directorate-General

In that case,

C 277 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Does the Commission not believe that the incorporation by the Spanish state of Directive 97/11/EC

1.
is seriously incomplete as far as the public participation procedure is concerned?

Does the Commission consider the third paragraph of Article 13 of RD 1131/1988 to be compatible

2.
with Article 7(3)(b) of Directive 97/11/EC?

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(2) BOE [official journal of the Spanish state] No 111, 9 May 2001.
(3) BOE No 239, 5 October 1988.
(4) The municipality of Almassora is located a few kilometres away from the port of Castellón, and it has historically
been the locality most affected by the port and the successive extensions to it. This is recognised even in the
environmental impact statement on the extension of the port of Castellón (BOE No 224, 18 September 2001).

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
private projects on the environment (1) was amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

The deadline for the transposition of Directive 97/11/EC into national law expired on 14 March 1999.
Since the Commission did not receive the national measures transposing Directive 97/11/EC within the
time limit, it started an infringement procedure against Spain pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty and
brought action against Spain before the Court of Justice (3) for failure to act.

The Spanish Government has adopted Royal Decree-Law 9/2000 of 6 October 2000 (published in the
Spanish Official Gazette on 7 October 2000) which is intended to transpose Directive 97/11/EC
into Spanish law. The Spanish authorities have officially sent the Commission this text, which amends
the Spanish environmental impact assessment law (Royal Legislative Decree 1302/1986 of 28 June 1986).
Against this background, and in accordance with customary practice, the Commission has decided to
abandon the proceedings before the Court of Justice since the Spanish authorities notified the national
measures transposing Directive 97/11/EC after the proceedings were started.

With regard to the transposition of Directive 97/11/EC, it should be added that the abovementioned Royal
Decree-Law 9/2000 was later discussed as a draft law by the Spanish Parliament, which finally adopted
Law 6/2001 of 8 May 2001 on environmental impact assessment which amends the 1986 legislation
(published in the Spanish Official Gazette of 9 May 2001). The Spanish authorities have officially
communicated this new legislation to the Commission.

It should be pointed out that Article 7 of the Directive referred to by the Honourable Member is concerned
with the possible cross-border impact of certain projects in other Member States. The Honourable Member
surely wishes to refer to Article 6 of the Directive which states that other authorities and the public
concerned must be allowed to express their opinion before a project is authorised.

The present Spanish legislation on environmental impact assessment is Royal Legislative Decree 1302/
1986, as amended by the abovementioned Law 6/2001. The implementing Regulation is Royal
Decree 1131/1988 of 30 September 1988, to which the Honourable Member refers.

Article 3 of Royal Legislative Decree 1302/1986 requires the public concerned to be consulted about the
environmental impact study and the project and other institutions concerned to be asked for appropriate
reports.

Royal Decree 1131/1988 includes these obligations in a more detailed form. Article 13 refers to the
consultation of other persons,
institutions and administrations likely to be affected by the project.
Article 15 refers to the public consultation period which must be followed as part of the environmental
impact assessment procedure.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/183

In the light of the above, the Commission does not conclude that Directive 97/11/EC has not been
properly transposed into Spanish law as regards giving the public concerned an opportunity to take part in
the procedure.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) Case C-342/00.

(2002/C 277 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: French farm fraud

Further to Commissioner Fischler’s response to written question P-0440/02 (1) by Neil Parish, will the
Commission please confirm that it will inform the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control
as soon as the Commission has read and examined the report in detail? Will the Commission forward its
opinion as soon as possible? How does the Commission plan on recovering the missing funds?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission is in the process of examining the report of the French Court of Auditors in detail. It will
inform the Parliament’s Committee, on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) about its opinion on the report if
invited to do so by the Committee. The results of the examination will be in principle available before the
summer break.

If there is any evidence of administrative weaknesses leading to a risk to the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) then this will be dealt with by proposing financial corrections
through the clearance of accounts process. This is a well established process, set out in Council Regulation
(EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), which leads
to recoveries across the Union of € 600-800 million per year.
In the case of France these financial
corrections have amounted to € 457 million since 1994, or less that 1 % of the amount declared.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 277 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)
and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Devastation of the potential Natura 2000 area in the Kresna gorge in Bulgaria by implementation

of existing plans to build a motorway

Does the Commission recall a series of written questions, including No E-3147/00 (1) of 6 October
1.
2000, concerning plans for the construction of the E79 motorway between Sofia and Thessaloniki through
the Struma river valley in south-west Bulgaria as part of trans-European corridor No 4, which would
substantially alter the character of the gorge to the north of the city of Kresna which is an important
natural habitat and environmental transition zone, and its answer of 22 December 2000 in which it said
that any application for co-funding would require an environmental impact assessment and indicated that
the Commission delegation in Sofia was involved in consultations on planning the route and that it was
ready to support any application by Bulgaria for inclusion of the Kresna gorge in the Natura 2000
network?