WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/02 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Baltic Corridor.
Date: 2002-09-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, Poland, accession to the European Union, environmental impact, environmental law, motorway, national park, road building

C 280 E/2

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

environmental acquis, which should be transposed by all new acceding States, where plans for the Via
Baltica have been submitted prior to 21 July 2004, the provisions of the Directive would not yet be in
force. It is therefore doubtful whether and to which extent this Directive will need to be applied for the Via
Baltica expressway across the Biebrza National Park.

Under Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC, the question of possible alternative routings arises only in
specific circumstances, namely, if, despite a negative assessment of the implications for a protected site,
imperative reasons of overriding public interest justify the carrying out of the project. The Commission is
not aware at which stage of the process the planning of the motorway currently stands and will contact
the Polish authorities on this issue for their assurance that all necessary environmental requirements have
been complied with.

In this context the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to its responses to Written
Questions P-1648/02 by Mr Huhne and E-1694/02 by Mr Meijer (4), E-1968/02 by Mr Davies (5) and
E-2284/02 by Mr Xarchakos and Mr Dimitrakopoulos (6), confirming that neither PHARE nor ISPA funds
have been provided for the construction of the Via Baltica across the Biebrza marshes in north-east Poland.
Furthermore, such a project features in neither the ISPA nor the PHARE project pipeline and, therefore, no
request for Union support for this particular project has been made by the Polish authorities. Should the
Commission receive such a request, the project will be examined in the light of the relevant Community
environmental rules.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.
(4) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 201.
(5) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 181.
(6) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 20.

(2003/C 280 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2498/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: Baltic Corridor

Does the Commission have any plans to help the Polish Government to assess alternative routing options
for the ‘Via Baltica’ so as to avoid the potentially harmful impact of the currently preferred route on the
Biebzia National Park and other key sites?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

There is no doubt that the Biebrza National Park in Poland is of great value and deserves protection.

As already indicated in the reply to Written Question E-2476/02 by Mrs Lynne (1), Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) and
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) will apply to Poland as
soon as it becomes a Member State of the Union. This means that, upon accession, the protection foreseen
in Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC will apply for all sites included in the list of sites eligible
as sites of Community importance as well as for all sites designated as a Special Protection Area under
Directive 79/409/EEC.

The Honourable Member will be aware that from a legal point of view candidate states are not obliged to
fully comply with the acquis until the date of accession. However, since the beginning of the accession
negotiations,
the Commission has insisted that all new infrastructure investments in the candidate
countries should comply with Community environmental law. On the basis of this position, Poland should,
for all its transport infrastructure projects, including those that make up the Via Baltica, comply with the
Directives on nature protection (92/43/EEC, 79/409/EEC).

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/3

Under these Directives, the question of possible alternative routings arises only in specific circumstances,
namely, if, despite a negative assessment of the implications for a protected site, imperative reasons of
overriding public interest justify the carrying out of the project. The Commission is not aware at which
stage of the process the planning of the motorway currently stands and will contact the Polish authorities
on this issue for their assurance that all necessary environmental requirements have been complied with.

In this context the Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to its responses to Written
Questions P-1648/02 by Mr Huhne and E-1694/02 by Mr Meijer (4), E-1968/02 by Mr Davies (5) and
E-2284/02 by Mr Xarchakos and Mr Dimitrakopoulos (6), confirming that neither PHARE nor ISPA funds
have been provided for the construction of the Via Baltica across the Biebrza marshes in north-east Poland.
Furthermore, such a project features in neither the ISPA nor the PHARE project pipeline and, therefore, no
request for Union support for this particular project has been made by the Polish authorities. Should the
Commission receive such a request, the project will be examined in the light of the relevant Community
environmental rules.

(1) See page 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 201.
(5) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 181.
(6) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 20.

(2003/C 280 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2511/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 September 2002)

Subject: EU code of conduct on the export of arms and weapon systems to third countries

Reports in the international press claim that serious breaches of the code of conduct on arms exports to
third countries have been committed by Member States of the EU.

Although the Member States adopted strict common criteria on arms exports as early as May 1998 and
despite the existence of binding agreements, some Member States are manufacturing and exporting
weapon systems to third countries which do not fulfil the criteria set out in the code of conduct:

(cid:1) the UK which is reported to have sold weapon systems to undemocratic regimes and countries which

are embroiled in civil strife (India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Morocco, Tanzania), and

(cid:1) Belgium, which recently exported 5 500 weapons made by the Belgian arms manufacturer Fabrique

National to Nepal, where civil war has been raging for many years.

In view of the foregoing, will the Commission say whether it considers that the code of conduct on arms
exports has been breached (cid:1) in the UK’s case specifically criterion 2 of paragraphs (a) and (b), and in
Belgium’s case criterion 3? What measures will the Commission take to ensure that the code of conduct is
not circumvented and that, henceforth, there is stricter compliance with its provisions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports referred to by the Honourable Member was adopted by the
Member States in 1998 within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It is a
politically binding document aimed at creating high common standards for arms exports by establishing
eight criteria and increasing transparency. The operative provisions of the Code provide for the notification
of denials and for confidential consultations among the Member States concerned, but the final decision
remains at the discretion of the Member State to which an application for a transaction involving arms and
weapon systems has been addressed.