WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland.
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Regional Development Fund, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, countryside conservation, engineering structure, environmental impact, environmental protection, island region

C 242 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The condition assessment system (CAS) introduced under Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double hull or
equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2978/
94 (1) is an additional reinforced inspection scheme, specifically developed to detect structural weaknesses
in single-hull oil tankers over 20 000 tonnes which have not yet attained their age limit. It is carried out
every two and a half years by the flag State and by classification societies acting on its behalf.

Following the wreck of the Prestige, the Commission drew up a proposal for an amendment to Regulation
(EC) No 417/2002 (see the Communication of 20 December 2002) (2) on the accelerated phasing-in of
double hull or equivalent design requirements for single hull oil tankers, and reinforcing the inspection
procedures. Accordingly, from 2005, the Commission proposes the extension of that measure to single-
hull oil tankers of all categories still in use, including those below 20 000 tonnes, once they have attained
the age of 15 years. Political agreement was reached on the proposal at the Transport Council on
27 March 2003.

In order to apply these measures beyond the Member States, the Commission plans to coordinate action
against flags of convenience by improving the supervision of maritime administrations and recognised
bodies which check the structural integrity of ships. The first steps were taken to create an audit procedure
at the Tokyo ministerial conference in January 2002 and the idea was supported by the Commission in its
White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (3).

(1) OJ L 64, 7.3.2002.
(2) COM(2002) 780 final.
(3) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 242 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0543/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland

(26 February 2003)

Working on behalf of the Federal German Government, DEGES is planning to link the island of Rügen to
the mainland by means of a bridge incorporating pylons built to a height of 126 metres. The project will
damage the unspoilt landscape of the island and neighbouring mainland areas. Rügen’s uniqueness and its
rich plant and animal life have for generations offered a guarantee of high-quality tourism and income for
the island’s inhabitants. Half of the funding for the project is to be provided from the ERDF, even though
there is clearly no need for a new bridge. The number of people using the existing link fell substantially
between 1992 and 2000.

1.

(b)

2.

(b)

(a)
Is the Commission aware that there is no need for the project referred to above, since the
capacity of the existing bridge is generally sufficient, with the risk of traffic congestion confined to a
small number of days at the beginning and end of the holidays?

Is the Commission aware that the parallel rail link offers substantial unused capacity which has not
been properly taken into account thus far?

(a) How does the Commission assess the financing arrangements for the bridge, which provide for
the repayment of loans from toll proceeds?

Is the Commission aware that this toll can be avoided, since the existing link will remain toll-free in
the interests of the local population?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that the bridge will stand right in the middle of a
route linking two European protection areas (DE 1543-401, DE 1747-401) for migratory birds and
seabirds under the bird protection directive, 79/409/EEC?

4.

(a) Despite the facts outlined above, does the Commission take the view that the project should be
funded using ERDF resources?

(b)

If so, on what grounds?

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/145

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of plans of the government of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to build a new bridge
across the Ziegelgraben and Strelasund (cid:1) to the west of the existing road-rail drawbridge. The new bridge
is designed as a suspension bridge, held by two pylons, designed to allow ships to pass underneath. It is
intended as a toll bridge. The planning and financing of the bridge, which was subject to a public tender
procedure, is the responsibility of the German federal and state authorities, not of the Commission.

Regarding the possible effects of the bridge on bird life in the area as mentioned by the Honourable
Member, the Commission is currently investigating this issue. Based on the available information, the
Commission has taken action to ensure that the Federal Republic of Germany fulfils its obligations under
Article 6 (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (1) with regard to the possible effects of the planned bridge. As a result, the German
authorities are conducting an additional assessment of the possible effects of the bridge on the movements
of birds.

The German authorities have not requested support for the project from the Union under the Structural
Funds.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 242 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0545/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Compensation for fire damage in Pilion in 2000

(26 February 2003)

In July 2000, the area of Pilion in Greece suffered major damage to olive trees in the areas of Xynovrisi,
Argalasti and Siki situated in the municipality of Argalasti and Afetai, destroying the property and, in
many cases, the sole livelihood of hundreds of inhabitants. Initially, the Greek Government announced
payment of damages in the order of GRD 16 000 per olive tree. Those affected initially received an
advance payment of GRD 5 000 per olive tree and the ministry responsible announced that the remaining
amount would be paid following Commission authorisation.

When was the relevant file submitted to the Commission informing it of the extent of the damage?

Was the Greek Government seeking Commission authorisation to meet the damages from national funds
(in ELGA (cid:1) Farmers Insurance Organisation), or was it seeking Community funding under the CSF
Operational Programme for Agricultural Development?

What stage has now been reached by the proceedings?

If the request by the Greek Government has not yet been approved by the Commission, to what can this
delay be attributed?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2003)

The scheme for compensating Greek farmers who suffered losses caused by the fires in 2000 was notified
to the Commission by letter of 7 December 2000, received on 11 December.