WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/02 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Infringement of various EU directives and provisions in connection with the construction of an air-to-ground firing range in Brandenburg.
Date: 2002-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, Germany, application of EU law, defence policy, environmental impact, environmental law, military base, national park, protection of animal life

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/115

The Commission is regretfully aware of the situation. However, it cannot simply abdicate responsibility for
the sound management of the funds entrusted to it by the Budgetary Authority. Solutions which reconcile
the Commission’s responsibilities with the plans of FIME and its affiliates are currently being examined.

(1) COM(2002) 350 final.

(2003/C 52 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/02

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Infringement of various EU directives and provisions in connection with the construction of an

air-to-ground firing range in Brandenburg

Is the Commission already aware of concrete plans by the Federal German Ministry of Defence to construct
an air-to-ground firing range in the Kyritz-Ruppiner-Heide area (Brandenburg)? If not, can the Commission
consider the following issues?

The above air-to-ground firing range is to be constructed in the immediate vicinity of the Müritz national
park (the approach path for aircraft would be directly above the national park), which would, according to
various analyses, not only contravene several national regulations but also the following international rules:

(cid:1) the national park area is a bird protection area pursuant to the European Birds Directive (79/409/

EEC) (1);

(cid:1) parts of the national park have been notified to the Commission as an area of Community importance

pursuant to the Fauna-Flora-Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) (2);

(cid:1) the Müritz national park forms part of the coherent Natura 2000 network;

(cid:1) the Federal Republic of Germany is bound by a Community directive to refrain from taking any action
which would run counter to the objective of conservation in European conservation areas (this ban is
set out in Article 6(2) to (4) of the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive and paragraph 19c of the federal
German nature conservation law, requiring that an environmental impact assessment be carried out).

Given these infringements, and with a view to the possibility of calling for the repayment of EU funds:

(cid:1) is the Commission willing and able to look into the matter on the spot as soon as possible?

(cid:1) can the Commission take preventive action, will it do so, and what form will such action take?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

The Commission has received unspecified information about plans for military activities at the site
‘Wittstock-Ruppiner Heide’.

The German Government has proposed this site to the Commission as Site of Community Importance
(pSCI) under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive). Additional
information has been requested of the original
correspondent to enable the Commission to assess whether this Directive is being respected.

C 52 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The German Government also notified the site ‘Müritz Nationalpark’ as a Special Protection Area under
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (Birds Directive) and has
also proposed a part of the site as Site of Community Importance (pSCI) under Directive 92/43/EEC.

it should be noted that the protection regime under
With regard to possible impacts on these sites,
Article 6 (2)-(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC only applies if significant effects on the integrity of the sites in
view of the their conservation objectives, are likely.

To-date, the Commission has not received information showing that significant effects on one or more of
the above-referenced sites are likely. In particular, the Commission is not aware of the analyses cited by the
Honourable Member, but in order to assess this matter would welcome receipt of same.

As at present informed, the Commission does not consider that there are grounds to reclaim community
funding.

(2003/C 52 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1935/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Issue of multiple-entry Schengen visas

(3 July 2002)

In his 17 July 2001 reply to my written question E-1345/01 (1) on transit through EU Member States by
workers from third countries who are legally resident in Switzerland, Mr Vitorino (Commissioner), writing
on behalf of the Commission, says that ‘Member States could issue multiple-entry Schengen visas which
are valid for a longer period, thus making it easier for such persons to transit via Member States’.

He also says that the Commission will look into the matter, with due account also to Switzerland’s recent
request to participate in Schengen.

At a recent initiative organised by the Swiss trade union representing workers in industry and the
construction sector, I took part in a meeting in Berne which was also attended by ambassadors from a
number of EU countries (Austria, Germany and Italy) and a representative of the French embassy, all of
whom expressed their willingness to find a solution to the existing problems, with particular reference to
workers holding Swiss residence and work permits valid for periods of one year or more.

Would the Commission say what action has already been (or is to be) taken with a view to solving those
problems?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

The Swiss trade union representing workers in industry and the construction sector has expressed the same
views to the Commission as those contained in the Honourable Member’s question.

The Commission takes the view that the relevant Community legal provisions do not preclude the issue of
multiple-entry transit visas valid for a year or more, provided, of course, that the general conditions
governing the issue of the standard visa are observed.

It considers that the issue of multiple-entry transit visas could greatly reduce waiting times for foreign
nationals, particularly in the run-up to the annual holidays, until such time as Switzerland’s request to
participate in the Schengen-Dublin arrangements results in a bilateral agreement between the Community/
the Union and Switzerland, thereby resolving the problem altogether.