WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/02 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Conclusion of appeal proceedings Nos. 98/4010 and 98/4826.
Date: 2002-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Lower Austria, apiculture, case-law (EU), conflict of powers, national implementing measure, operation of the Institutions, zootechnics

C 52 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

Reliable estimates of discharges from ships in European rivers are not available. At present such discharges
are covered by various pieces of regional or national legislation. However, this situation should change in
the near future as these discharges are covered under the Water Framework Directive (4).

(1)

(2)

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978
relating thereto (Marpol 73/78), Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.

(3) Directive 2000/59/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for

ship-generated waste and cargo residues, OJ L 332, 28.12.2000.

(4) Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for

Community action in the field of water policy, OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

(2003/C 52 E/194)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2470/02

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Subject: Conclusion of appeal proceedings Nos. 98/4010 and 98/4826

A ruling is to be made in cases 98/4010 and 98/4826 pending before the Commission as to the
compatibility with EU law of national provisions laying down restrictions for the protection of races of
bees. The Commission announced in September 2001 that these cases would be concluded by the end of
2001, yet proceedings are still under way.

The government of the province of Lower Austria intends to use the Commission’s decision as a basis to
amend the law on bee-keeping. In view of the uncertainty of the legal situation as long as the above cases
have not been concluded, there is a risk of persistent crossbreeding with detrimental consequences for bee-
keeping.

How does the Commission justify the lengthiness of the proceedings in the above cases?

Does the Commission consider that the cause of the delay in concluding the proceedings is a conflict of
competence between the Agriculture DG and the Health and Consumer Protection DG? Which Directorate-
General is responsible for settling these cases?

When will the Commission take a decision in the above cases?

Is the Commission aware of the judgment of the Court of Justice in a similar case, C-67/97 of 3 December
1998, that restrictions for the protection of races of bees were justified? What is the Commission’s view of
the possible application of Court of Justice case-law to the cases in question?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission received the complaints in question on 3 November 1998 and 12 August 1998
respectively. Contacts with the Austrian authorities were taken at an early stage. The reorganisation of the
Commission in 1999 caused a general delay in the treatment of complaints. However, by the end of 2001,
the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the information received did not demonstrate that the
Austrian law in question constituted a breach of Community law. In accordance with the procedural rules
applicable to infringement investigations, the Commission sent a letter to the complainants informing
them that the cases were to be closed. In their answers to this letter, the complainants contested, however,
some of the factual elements provided by the Austrian authorities, elements which were relevant for the
assessment of the cases. The Commission is therefore obliged to reopen the investigations and this is why
the complaints are still open.

Following the said reorganisation of
Directorate-General
Commission services on these complaints.

is the Health and Consumer Protection
that is responsible for the complaints in question. There is no conflict between

the Commission,

it

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/177

The Honourable Member can be assured that the Commission is aware of the judgement of the Court of
Justice in case C-67/97. The outcome of the investigations depends indeed on the extent to which this case
law can be applied to the present complaints.

A final decision will be taken by the Commission in mid-October with regard to both complaints (98/
4010 and 98/4826).

(2003/C 52 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2482/02

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: Proposed construction of an airport at Cliffe Marshes, UK

The UK Government’s Department of Transport has opened a national consultation procedure on the
Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South-East.

One of the proposals set out in the document involves the construction of a new International Airport at
Cliffe Marshes, Medway, South-East England. I have received many letters of concern from my Constituents
regarding this proposal.

The Marshes are a Ramsar Site, SSSI site and a protected site included in the EC Habitats Directive.

I should be grateful to hear the views of the Commission on the construction of an International Airport
on the above site.

What powers does the EU Commission have to deter Member States from developing such sites?

What authorisation is required from the Commission for this development to proceed?

What would be the implications for the UK Government if they proceeded with the development?

I should be grateful for a prompt response.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The Commission is aware that the United Kingdom is considering the construction of a new international
airport at Cliffe as one of its possible options for the future development of air transport in the South East
of England.

the Parliament and of

the Council of 23 July 1996 (1) establishes the
Decision No 1692/96/EC of
guidelines covering the objectives, priorities and broad lines of measures envisaged in the area of the trans
European transport network. These guidelines identify projects of common interest, the implementation of
which should contribute to the development of the network throughout the Community. The trans-
European airport network comprises airports, which should comply with the criteria set out in the
guidelines. According to the South East Consultation Document, the Cliffe airport demand is predicted to
be 58 million passengers per year in 2015 and in this respect the airport can be characterised as an
international connecting point.

In view of Article 8 of the guidelines, environmental legislation on Community level should be taken into
account when projects related to airports of common interest are developed and carried out.