WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Objections to the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries' attitude to the Laarbruch airfield and the De Maasduinen national park.
Date: 2002-11-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, environmental impact, environmental protection, exchange of information, industrial project, protected area, protection of animal life

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/139

Moreover, following the above-mentioned Communication and in order to help consumers to get used to
‘thinking in Euro’, the retail sector will display double prices until 30 June 2003 at the latest, while
informing their customers well in advance of this change.

The practical introduction of Euro notes and coins has been a general success. Appropriate measures to
help consumers become more familiar with the Euro were put in place in the period leading up to the
changeover in 2002 and have been quite successful.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/consumers/policy/developments/fina_serv/fina_serv06_en.pdf.
(2) COM(2002) 747 Final of 19.12.2002.

(2003/C 155 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3339/02

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

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Objections to the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries’ attitude

to the Laarbruch airfield and the De Maasduinen national park

In a letter dated 30 September 2002 to the Netherlands Minister of Transport and Public Works
concerning the Laarbruch airfield in Germany, the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Manage-
ment and Fisheries concludes, on the basis that no data are available for the species of birds occurring in
the area, that the conversion of the Laarbruch airfield would have no significant effect on the De
Maasduinen national park in the Netherlands, which is covered by the Birds Directive.

1.
Can the Commission explain why the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and
Fisheries can claim that insufficient data are available concerning the qualifying species of birds occurring
in the De Maasduinen park, given that the park was classified as a special protection area under the Birds
and Habitats Directive in March 2000 specifically on the basis of the qualifying species of birds found
there?

2. What measures might the Commission envisage if the position of the Netherlands Ministry for
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries in fact proves to be in breach of existing European
regulations, and in particular the Birds and Habitats Directive?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

1.
The Commission can confirm that the site ‘Park De Maasduinen’ was classified by the Dutch
government as a Special Protection Area (SPA) following Article 4 (1) of Council Directive 79/409/EC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of the wild birds (1). The Commission has no information, however, on
the reasons why the Dutch authorities claim that there are insufficient data available on the birds species
occurring in that area, as a list of such species was communicated to the Commission when the area was
designated as an SPA.

Following Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
2.
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2) (‘Habitats Directive’), which also applies to SPAs under the
Birds Directive, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of such a
site but likely to have a significant effect thereon shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site. The responsibility for implementing these requirements lies with the Member
State where such a plan or project is carried out, in this case the Federal Republic of Germany. The

C 155 E/140

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Commission was informed about the project in the context of several complaints concerning the correct
application of the Council Directive 85/337 EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (3) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (4). These complaints are currently under assessment. However, at the moment, the Commission has
no information whether the project might have a significant impact on the SPA ‘Park De Maasduinen’.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) Amendments by Directive 97/11/EC (cid:1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 155 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3345/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Criteria for the selection of directors-general and other senior staff in the Commission

for

The Commission’s answers to Written Questions E-1268/02 (1) and E-0268/02 (2) call
further
clarification. If the situation is as described by the Commission, we must conclude that the criticisms
repeatedly expressed by the R & D union were unfounded. However, in that case, it is surprising that the
Commission did not feel obliged to intervene in order to defend the honour of the persons mentioned in
the R & D notes and letters. Moreover, the details provided in such documents are sufficiently explicit to
identify the cases of ‘nepotism’ in question. What is needed, therefore,
is not to establish how R & D
succeeded in obtaining advance knowledge of the names of successful candidates, but to reassure the
general public that appointments have not been made according to a country quota system, as recently
noted by the Court of First Instance when it ruled against the appointment of a Deputy Director-General
partly on the grounds that senior posts in DG Agriculture had been shared out among five large countries
since 1973. Another example may be found in the procedure set in motion to fill the post of Director of
Security, which is likely to result in the appointment of a candidate who is currently a temporary staff
member and who was employed by a Member State’s intelligence service from 1980 to 1996.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not consider that the current selection procedures do not
ensure that there are no grounds whatsoever for questioning the transparency of appointments among its
senior staff?

Does it not feel that the rulings delivered by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in this area
constitute an outright rejection of these procedures as far as an objective assessment of the candidates’
managerial qualifications and professional skills is concerned? Will it state how many appointments of A1,
A2 and A3 officials have been annulled following rulings by the Court of First Instance and Court of
Justice in the last three years?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 173.
(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The tracts of the trade union referred to did not, in fact, name any individual person so it would be
difficult if not impossible for the Commission to act in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials and other servants at the Communities allows the
Commission to respond to requests from officials for assistance in proceedings against any person who is
alleged to have perpetrated insulting or defamatory acts or utterances.

With regard to the assertion about a ‘country quota system’ the Honourable Member should note that at
its first meeting (cid:1) held on 18 September 1999 (cid:1) the present Commission emphasised that
‘the
nationality of the outgoing post holder should not be a factor in the appointment of the new occupant of
the post’, thus re-affirming the provisions of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that no posts are to be
reserved for nationals of any specific Member State. Since the current Commission came into office a