WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/03 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission. Obtaining the opinion of the general public in the assessment of the implications of projects in areas of conservation.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, access to information, environmental impact, environmental protection, impact study, national implementing measure, protected area, transparency in decision-making

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/113

(2004/C 11 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0745/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: List of standards

Will the Commission publish a list of all standards that are considered binding under EU directives and
regulations stating both the total number of pages and whether they should be added to the figure of
97 000 pages of EU rules recently produced by the Commission?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

If the term ‘standards’ used in the English-language version of the written question is a reference to
technical standards within the meaning of Parliament and Council Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998
laying down a procedure for the provision of
technical standards and
regulations (1), it must be pointed out that these are not binding standards but voluntary standards, which
do not fall within the rule-making remit of the Community legislator.

information in the field of

The 97 000 pages to which the Honourable Member refers represent, as far as secondary Community
legislation (regulations, directives and decisions within the meaning of Article 249 of the EC Treaty) is
concerned, the entire body of binding legal rules in force at the end of 2002. Such technical standards
could not, therefore, be added to them.

If the term ‘standards’ refers to technical standards that take the form of one of the three binding legal
instruments provided for in Article 249, all those standards can be included in the 97 000 pages
mentioned above.

In both cases, the amount of research needed to provide a detailed answer to the Honourable Member’s
question would be disproportionate to the result sought and would go beyond the scope of an answer to a
written question.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2004/C 11 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0755/03

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Obtaining the opinion of the general public in the assessment of the implications of projects in

areas of conservation

According to Article 6 of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC (1)), any plan or project that is likely to have a
significant effect on a special area of conservation must be assessed for its implications for the site in view
of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the assessment of the implications for the site, the
competent authorities may agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not
adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of
the general public.

In Austria, Article 6 of the FFH Directive was transposed into nine provincial laws on nature conservation.
However, eight of these new provincial
laws stipulate that the opinion of the general public must be
obtained. The authorities are not able, therefore, to decide for themselves, according to each individual
case, whether or not to obtain the opinion of the general public.

C 11 E/114

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Under what circumstances does Commission believe that the national authorities should obtain the
1.
opinion of the general public when assessing the implications for a site in accordance with Article 6 of the
FFH Directive?

Is it permissible to forego this part of the procedure in the case of projects that are subject to an

2.
assessment of their effects on the environment in accordance with Directive 85/337/EEC (2)?

3.
Does the Commission consider the incorporation of Article 6(3) of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC)
into Austrian nature conservation law satisfactory as regards obtaining the opinion of the general public?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
wild fauna and flora (1) (Habitats Directive) does not oblige authorities to consult the public before taking a
decision on a plan or project potentially affecting significantly a special area of conservation. However,
Member States are not allowed to exclude public consultation for all such plans or for all such projects but
should address this issue appropriately within the implementation of the Habitats Directive. Competent
authorities should for example see on a case by case basis whether public consultation is appropriate.
Moreover, in the light of the Aarhus Convention (2), the Commission, as a matter of principle, is supportive
of broad public access to environmental
the public in
environmental decision-making.

the participation of

information and of

On the questions raised, the following answers can be given:

(cid:1) Public consultation is necessary where the assessment required by Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive
takes the form of an assessment under 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 (EIA
Directive).

(cid:1) As pointed out above, public consultation is in any case required when the assessment under
Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive is incorporated in the environmental impact assessment under
the EIA Directive.

(cid:1) The Austrian legislation transposing the Habitats Directive has been examined by the Commission.
This examination identified several problems of non-conformity, including with regard to Article 6.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) Convention of 25 June 1998 on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to

Justice in Environmental Matters.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2004/C 11 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0764/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Cetacean by-catch

Can the Commission assure us that it will make every effort to ensure that measures proposed in the
Commission’s Working Document on by-catch will be in place by winter 2003-2004? The proposals
concern important areas such as restriction on the use of certain fishing gears; the mandatory use of
acoustic deterrent devices for certain gill and set net fisheries; on-board cetacean by-catch observer
schemes to be organised by Member States for all flagged or registered vessels and; overall monitoring of
cetacean incidental catches.