WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Ijzeren Rijn.
Date: 2002-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, infringement of EU law, protection of animal life, rail network

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/181

In addition, with regard to the fight against illegal immigration by sea, following the adoption of the
3.
Action Plan to combat illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings in the European Union, the
Council also tackled this more specific question and adopted relevant conclusions at its meeting on 25 and
26 April 2002. In response to the invitation contained in the conclusions, the Commission is in the
process of examining, at technical meetings with representatives of the Member States, what measures
would be most appropriate and effective for consideration and implementation in this field at Union level.

4.
In the light of the Seville conclusions, the new Danish Presidency has given priority in its work
programme to the issue of combating illegal immigration, so as to be able to adopt and implement the
actions and measures on which the conclusions laid emphasis.

5.
Finally, with regard more specifically to the case of Morocco, it should be noted that, on the basis of
the mandate granted to it by the Council in 2000, the Commission submitted to the Moroccan authorities
that same year a draft readmission agreement. After a series of informal contacts between the Commission
and the Moroccan authorities, formal negotiations should begin in the next few months.

(2003/C 92 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2535/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Ijzeren Rijn

1.

Can the Commission provide an overview of the situation with regard to the Ijzeren Rijn project?

In the Commission’s opinion, have all

2.
(environmental impact assessment) and the habitats and wild birds directives been eliminated?

the objections and obstacles with regard to the EIA

Is the Commission aware of the conclusions of Van Den Biesen Advocaten of 22 May 2002, and

3.
what view does it take of them?

The conclusions of Van Den Biesen Advocaten include the following passage: ‘On the basis of the above,
the general conclusion must be that the current procedural preparations for the reopening of the Ijzeren
Rijn line contravene the relevant European law. At the same time, bearing in mind European law and the
Berne Convention, it is highly questionable whether the Ijzeren Rijn line could ever be reopened while
complying with the law referred to here. The old treaties of 1839 and 1873 are insufficient to support
Belgium’s position and at all events do not override the existence, let alone the sense, the significance and
the binding character, of current European law.’

4. What action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2002)

The ‘IJzeren Rijn’ (Iron Rhine) railway links the port of Antwerp and the German Ruhr area and is based
on a right of way through the Dutch canton of Sittard which is guaranteed by the Dutch-Belgian
separation Treaty of 1839 and subsequent Treaties of 1842 and 1873. Rail traffic existed on this route
between 1879 and 1994.

The issue of the re-opening of the Iron Rhine has been the subject of several parliamentary questions, as
well as of a complaint procedure against the Netherlands and two complaint procedures against Germany,
because of possible infringements in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (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)) and the Nature Protection Directives: Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) (Birds directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (3) (Habitats directive).

C 92 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

As far as the Commission is aware, no final decision by the national authorities has yet been taken as to
the re-opening of the Iron Rhine.

The Commission closed the complaint case against the Netherlands as the re-opening of the Iron Rhine, to
the extent that it had been practised until 1994, did not infringe upon the Birds and Habitats Directives.
An international assessment of the project has shown that the re-opening of the existing line would be the
most environmentally friendly and the most economical option. In addition, it is improbable that restoring
railway traffic would significantly affect the area’s conservation values. The sites ‘Meinweg’ and ‘Weerter en
Budelerbergen’, that will possibly be affected by the re-opening of the Iron Rhine, have been designated as
special protection areas under the Birds Directive and notified as proposed sites of Community importance
under the Habitats Directive. At the time of the respective designation and notification, however, the
railway had already been operational for more than 100 years in the area.

The complaint cases against Germany are still pending. From the information available to the Commission
it appears that sites protected under the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive will not be affected in
Germany. The Commission currently is assessing whether the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC are
being respected. However, taking into account that no decision has been taken on the project, an
infringement of this Directive appears unlikely at the moment.

The Commission is not aware of the conclusions of 22 May 2002 to which the Honourable Member
refers. As regards the Treaties of 1839 and 1873, in its reply to written question E-2381/99 by Mr Staes (4),
the Commission has already stated that it is not for it to judge the effects of the Treaties and that the
application of the Community law will not necessarily obstruct the application of the Treaties. It also said
that it is for the Member States concerned to assess and determine the future use of the Iron Rhine railway
line.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000.

(2003/C 92 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Seizure of Galician-owned British fishing boats (cid:1) the recent seizure of

the fishing vessel

‘Hermanos Yañez’

The Galician-owned fishing boat ‘Hermanos Yañez’ sailing under the British flag was recently seized by
British navy patrol boats whilst it was fishing in Community waters. It was apparently taken to the port of
Falmouth to ascertain how large its catch actually was. Since July four Galician-owned vessels sailing under
the British flag have been seized and obliged, for various reasons, to sail into a British port. Do the British
authorities treat vessels belonging to United Kingdom citizens in the same way? Does the Commission
consider that the British authorities are behaving arbitrarily in monitoring vessels flying the British flag and
fishing in adjacent Community waters, since they treat vessels differently depending on ownership of the
vessels and hence Galician vessels may be the subject of discrimination? Has the Commission carried out
any inspection to ascertain whether such discrimination exists?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2002)

The Commission has been informed, on 16 August 2002, of the detention on 10 August 2002 of the
United Kingdom registered and licensed vessel ‘Hermanos Yañez’ (Registration number AR870) for failing
to comply with Articles 19b, c and e of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (1), as amended. The British
authorities are obliged under Community law to inspect and follow up any violations by masters of fishing
vessels of the rules of the Common Fishery Policy.