WRITTEN QUESTION P-3136/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Route for oversized loads.
Date: 2002-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU law, France, carriage of goods, environmental law, environmental protection, inland transport, road transport, transport infrastructure

C 222 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

approaches and identifying best practice, corporate social responsibility, economic incentives (cid:1) and on
building partnerships between all players in the field of health and safety.

Spain has notified the Commission of the measures to transpose the EU Directives on health and safety at
work. Having examined them, however, the Commission has launched infringement proceedings against
Spain with regard to some of the provisions contained in Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989
on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (2)
and Council Directive 89/655/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/63/CE of 5 December 1995,
concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at
work (3).

The Commission, with the assistance of the Advisory Committee for Safety, Hygiene and Health Protection
at Work, is currently drawing up its report on the practical application of the various ‘health and safety’
Directives, with a view to identifying any practical problems and improving certain of the provisions to
make them more readily comprehensible and more consistent, and to fill the gaps in the existing
framework.

When it comes to the application of measures designed to improve health and safety at work, it is the
responsibility of the Member States to ensure adequate control and monitoring of national provisions
transposing the Community Directives on the health and safety of workers at work.

(1) COM(2002) 118 final.
(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(3) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.

(2003/C 222 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3136/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Route for oversized loads

The French Government has decided to create a route for oversized loads between Bordeaux and Toulouse
to carry the parts for Airbus A380, and also to construct a special roadway for oversized loads. This route
makes an incomprehensible detour via Barbotan Les Thèrmes, although there is a direct route which is
7 km shorter.

Given that:

(cid:1) Barbotan is a spa employing 1 700 people, which would suffer from the reduction in its activities that

the major disruption of the road would cause;

(cid:1) the Barbotan site has already been suggested to the Commission as a site of Community interest and is
home to a number of notable species, one of which is a priority species under the Habitats directive;

(cid:1) structural funds have been granted to promote the development of the spa and help preserve the

environment,

does the Commission not take the view that this route is being created in violation of Community
environmental law, more specifically Directives 79/409/EEC (1) and 92/43/EEC (2)? Can the Commission tell
me if structural funds and/or EIB loans have been allocated to the building of this route for oversized loads
between Bordeaux and Toulouse? If so, would this not be in contradiction with the funding for
environmental protection? What steps does the Commission intend to take to help modify this route in
order to comply with the environmental directives?

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

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/47

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2002)

The Commission very recently received two complaints concerning the project the Honourable Member is
referring to for a wide route between Bordeaux et Toulouse to carry parts for the Airbus A 380. It is
currently examining whether the project is in any way incompatible with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 may 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Having examined the information contained
take the necessary steps to ensure that Community
in the complaint
environment law is observed.

the Commission will

files,

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that no Community financing is involved in this
project.

(2003/C 222 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3138/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Community initiative Leader+ in Greece

The newspaper Kathimerini reports that the Kozani development company, which was responsible for the
Greek network of the Community’s Leader initiative in the previous planning period, sent a letter to the
development companies implementing the Leader+ programme for 2000-2006, requesting them to
incorporate measures for the benefit of hunting associations in their programmes.

The aims of this proposal are:

(cid:1) the development of the wildlife’ of selected areas of the country,

(cid:1) measures to be implemented in areas where hunting is not prohibited,

(cid:1) the drawing up of integrated management plans for the forest areas concerned,

(cid:1) special breeding areas for game and a register of animals caught drawn up by the hunting

associations(!),

(cid:1) training groups to develop skills, the aim being to inform hunters on matters relating to ecology,

biology of species, ecosystem management, use of guns etc.

The proposal was put forward by the Greek Hunting Confederation and signed by its president, who is
also the Director-General of the management authority for the 3rd Community Support Framework in
Greece. EUR 175 000 are required to draw up the management plans and EUR 200 000 for training for
each local Leader+ programme.

This top-down ‘sponsorship’ is contrary to the compulsory bottom-up approach required in drawing up
local programmes (Commission communication on Leader+, April 2000). At the same time, hunters are
given the right to draw up management plans for forests for which they have no competence, while the
Ministry for Agriculture has itself announced 24 management plans for forests which are to be financed
from the operational programme ‘Agricultural Development’ for 2000-2006.

the Leader+
Can the Commission say what practical measures it proposes to take to ensure that
programme is implemented without hindrance or unlawful
intervention? What does the Commission
intend to do to prevent the EU financing the same measures twice (forest management plans, seminars,
etc.) from the same structural fund and the Leader+ programme from funding incompetent bodies (the
Hunting Confederation and hunting associations)?