WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Roads in the Tiburtino district of Rome.
Date: 2003-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Latium, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, metropolis, road building, town-planning scheme

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/129

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2003)

The Commission is not aware of any projects directed at limiting the number of migratory birds that come
into cities during their migrations. It therefore has no examples of good practice. The Commission also has
no information on any projects by the city of Rome with this objective.

Any action taken to control the number of birds in Rome will have to be taken within the conditions set
by Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1),
if
necessary, the use of derogations regulated by Article 9 of the Directive.

including,

Although the problem might have an international dimension,
the Member States have exclusive
competencies for dealing with it. The Commission can only, and will if requested, act as a facilitator for
the contacts between the Member States involved. For that purpose, however, more information would be
needed, namely concerning the identification of
the species that create problems, details on their
occurrence and information on their origin.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2003/C 222 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Roads in the ‘Tiburtino’ district of Rome

The area in the south-east of Rome called the ‘Tiburtino’, where the urban fabric and the environment
often suffer damage, is now the subject of a new Prusst programme devised by Rome City Council, aimed
at restoring and transforming the areas along the Tiber which have deteriorated and improving the Aniene
park. A road is to be built parallel to the via Tiburtina (covering the same area as the earlier detailed Plan
18 L, in which the local street network will be improved and the neighbouring via di Cerchiara extended),
as is a cycle path (from the ‘Ponte Mammolo’ area to Lunghezza, a village near Rome) and pedestrian
streets providing access to groups of houses.

The area is, however, compromised by a large number of existing industrial and residential settlements and
a motorway ring-road leading to the agri-foodstuffs centre and the Tiburtino technology park.
Furthermore, about one thousand inhabitants are without drinking water and mains drainage, and road
surfacing and street lighting leave much to be desired.

A further town planning project therefore threatens to worsen the situation, especially if one considers that
it does not seem to take account of the local transport crisis, which affects an area with heavy traffic and a
population of 940 000, if we count the inhabitants, workers in local firms and visitors to the nearby Villa
d’Este and Villa Adriana (Unesco heritage sites), where so far there is only one major road (the via
Tiburtina) with only one lane in each direction and no emergency lane, a stretch of urban motorway
without a third lane and a single-track railway line.

The local residents’ association submitted a petition to the competent local authorities and to the European
Parliament (Petition No 698/2002 on road conditions on the via Tiburtina in Rome).

In view of the above, can the Commission say:

1. whether Rome City Council has carried out an environmental

impact assessment for the Prusst
‘Tiburtino’ in accordance with the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) and whether the obligation
to inform the population laid down in Directive 2001/42/EC (2) has been fulfilled;

2. whether it is possible to suspend any further building project until the most urgent road transport

projects have been carried out?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

C 222 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission considers that programmes and plans are not covered by 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), whether before or after amendment by Directive 97/11/EC (2).

Should the plan be considered as substantially having the characteristics of a project, Council Directive 85/
337/EEC would apply. However, on the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it is
not possible to conclude that the new Prusst programme envisaged by Rome City Council, aimed at
restoring and transforming the areas along the Tiber, may be considered as a project.

In the light of the above, given the lack of specific grounds for the complaint on the application of the
Council Directive 85/337/EEC to the specific cases, no breach of the Directive can be identified at present.
Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues
in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission would also be able to investigate this matter.

Under Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of
the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (3), certain plans and programmes which
are likely to have significant effects on the environment are made the subject of an environmental
assessment. However, Member States are not yet obliged to apply the provisions of this Directive. The
deadline for Member States to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
necessary to comply with this Directive is 21 July 2004.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001.

(2003/C 222 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Death of the Chechen Salman Raduyev in a Russian gaol

On Sunday 15 December 2002 the Russian Ministry of Justice announced the death, at the age of 35, of
Salman Raduyev (cid:1) the first of the Chechen commanders to be arrested, tried and sentenced to life
imprisonment for the hostage-taking in Kisljar in 2001 (cid:1) on 14 December 2002 in the infirmary of the
‘White Swan’ prison in the city of Solikamsk, Siberia (Perm region). It took him several days to die
following an internal haemorrhage caused, according to Russian sources, by old war wounds which had
‘never completely healed’.

On Monday, 16 December, an article in the Russian newspaper Kommersant, reproduced in the
Süddeutsche Zeitung, reported statements made anonymously by prison staff, according to which Raduyev
was said, by his cell-mate, to have been beaten to death after having opposed a surprise search of his cell
by his guards. Salman Raduyev was one of the witnesses whose testimony was used to back the Russian
Justice Ministry’s request to Denmark and Great Britain for the arrest and extradition of Akhmed Zakaiev.
Raduyev allegedly claimed that Zakaiev had taken part personally in kidnappings and terrorist acts. In the
same article the Kommersant suggested an interpretation of events according to which Raduyev might
have been forced to testify against Zakaiev and then been eliminated.

Is the Council aware of these allegations and if so, how did it react? What official steps does it intend to
take to ensure that light is thrown on the real circumstances of Mr Raduyev’s death? More generally, how
does the Council rate Russia’s ability to fulfil the duties of a constitutional state?