WRITTEN QUESTION P-3001/02 by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Wild birds Directive: different interpretations in the Member States.
Date: 2002-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, approximation of laws, bird, directive (EU), hunting regulations, interpretation of the law, protection of animal life

C 222 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The Commission believes that such information should not be made public so as to protect business
confidentiality and commercial relations and not to undermine the protection of the business interests of
the undertakings involved.

Can the Commission indicate the extent to which such publication would harm the business interests of
the undertakings involved?

Given the criticism being levelled at its accounting practices, would it not be in the Commission’s best
interests to publish these figures in order to prove that the monies being paid into and out of its accounts
correspond to the figures entered in its revenue and expenditure account?

Why does not the Commission simply seek the agreement of the banks involved to the publication of the
figures?

If it were absolutely essential to keep some of these figures confidential, why will the Commission not
forward the confidential information to me directly, in accordance with Article 287 of the EC Treaty, as it
did when answering my Written Question E-2235/02 (2) (contracts awarded by the Commission’s Legal
Service)?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 24.
(2) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 57.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2003)

The Commission has examined this matter and concluded that it is entitled to indicate the volume of
payments carried out in the years 2000 and 2001 by the banks listed in the answer to part 1 of Written
Question E-1851/02 (1).

The Commission will send the information requested directly to the Honourable Member and to the
Secretariat General of the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 24.

(2003/C 222 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3001/02

by Winfried Menrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Subject: Wild birds Directive: different interpretations in the Member States

Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of wild birds is a source of continuing controversy among
both conservationists and hunters. The main reason for this is the widely differing interpretations of the
Directive in the various Member States.

In view of the current discussions about the production of a guide to interpreting the wild birds Directive,
how will the Commission ensure that interpretations do not differ so widely in future?

What possibilities does the Commission see of securing the Directive’s praiseworthy goal of protecting
species with less bureaucracy?

Is the Commission seeking to update the wild birds Directive as a means of attaining these objectives?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/33

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2002)

Although differing interpretations of the requirements of the Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds would appear to have contributed to some controversies
surrounding its implementation, especially as regards its hunting provisions, other factors have also played
a role. These include the failure of some Member States to correctly transpose and adequately enforce the
different provisions of the Directive. There is also still a frequent lack of good scientific information on
bird populations and aspects of their biology, such as migration and reproduction periods, to underpin
correct application of the Directive in some Member States.

Justice providing definitive
There is already a considerable amount of case law from the Court of
including those relating to hunting. The guidance
interpretation of the provisions of the Directive,
document on hunting, which is being prepared by the Commission, with assistance from experts of
Member States and key stakeholder groups, is intended to facilitate the future application of the Directive
as it will provide a comprehensive overview of hunting within the framework of the Directive. In this
regard it will refer to the relevant case law, as well as describing the legal, scientific and conservation
principles that underpin the management of hunting under the Directive. While providing this clarity the
guide fully recognises that it rests with the Court of Justice to provide definitive interpretation of a
Directive.

The Commission intends to make the guide available to each Member State as well as to the different key
stakeholders, which should help ensure that interpretations do not differ widely in the future. It is the
Commission’s hope that the guide will assist Member States in achieving a consistent application of the
Directive and thereby avoiding misunderstandings such as those that have happened in the past. The
Commission will, nevertheless, in its role as guardian of the EC Treaty, continue to monitor the application
of the Directive in each Member State and to take the necessary measures where there are failures of
compliance.

The Commission is also continuing to promote a constructive dialogue on sustainable hunting under the
Directive between the different key stakeholders, including representatives of hunter and bird protection
societies. This is aimed at working in partnership to deliver a series of scientific, conservation and
management, as well as education and awareness measures on sustainable hunting, while at the same time
securing the Directive’s primary objective of conserving the Community’s shared heritage of wild birds.

There are at present no plans to amend the Directive other than to introduce adaptations to its Annexes,
on the basis of proposals from the candidate countries, with the enlargement of the Union.

(2003/C 222 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3006/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Complaint 2002/427 concerning pollution at a school (cid:1) infringement of Directive 89/391/EEC

and the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Schoolchildren at the Nideggen Schulzentrum are at daily risk from harmful emissions in the building.
In spite of extensive action taken by the parents’ association (proof of the contamination, involvement of
public authorities and ministries), the relevant bodies are taking no steps whatsoever to eliminate the
source of danger.

How does the Commission view the fact

1.
contamination in the workplace, but does not apply to schoolchildren?

that Article 3a of Directive 89/391/EEC (1) covers

Are children not in a worse position than adults with regard to their rights, especially considering

2.
that their organs are much less able than adult organs to tolerate pollutants?