WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/03 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Extensive clearing of trees and bushes in FFH areas in the Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg, Germany.
Date: 2003-05-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, deforestation, environmental impact, environmental policy, environmental protection, protected area

C 58 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1512/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: The case of Oriel de Armas Peraza

The Cuban exile Oriel de Armas Peraza, who has been living for a year in Vicenza (Italy) with his wife and
four-year-old daughter, is an active member of the human rights association ‘Cuban Patriotic Alliance’ and
is awaiting a reply to an application for political asylum lodged with the relevant Italian authorities. There
is no doubt that, because of his frequent criticisms of the Castro regime, Mr Oriel de Armas will be
arrested for his political activities if he is sent back to Cuba.

His situation is posing a problem, however, because he does not have health insurance and is unable to
secure treatment for his daughter, who suffers from asthma.

The residence permit issued to Mr Oriel de Armas Peraza, which expired on 18 August 2002, was
extended by the Vicenza police until 14 February 2003 pending a decision on his application for political
asylum.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that, in similar cases involving severe human rights abuses,
‘European political asylum’ can be granted to enable those such as Cuban exile Oriel de Armas Peraza and
his family to renew their residence permits?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

In the field of asylum, there are no Community provisions in place based on Article 63 of the EC Treaty
related to the matter raised in this question. The proposal for a Directive on minimum standard for the
qualification as a refugee or as a person otherwise in need of international protection (1) is still under
discussion in the Council. Therefore, the Commission has no power to intervene on that basis with the
Italian authorities.

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Extensive clearing of trees and bushes in FFH areas in the Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg,

Germany

For some time now extensive clearing of trees and bushes has been taking place on the rivers Schwarze
Elster, Pulsnitz and Röder (Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg). The competent authority (Brandenburg
Regional Environment Office) has justified this work on the grounds of the necessary renovation and
maintenance work on the dykes.

These operations have been or are being carried out in the following designated FFH areas:

(cid:1) FFH area 509 ‘Pulsnitz and flood plains’;

(cid:1) FFH area 495 ‘Middle reach of the Schwarze Elster’;

(cid:1) FFH area 231 ‘Arnsnestea flood plains’;

(cid:1) FFH area 498 ‘Kleine Röder’.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/75

The Brandenburg Regional Environment Office takes the view that this constitutes maintenance work
(for urgent flood-protection reasons), even though there was no acute threat on these rivers during the
floods of August 2002 or during those of January 2003. The extensive clearance of trees and bushes in
these FFH areas is having a considerable impact on protected habitats and animal species.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it has already been informed of this work?

(cid:1) whether it is prepared to verify if this clearing operation is simply renovation or maintenance work

(as claimed by the Brandenburg Regional Environment Office)?

(cid:1) whether it is prepared to investigate (perhaps on the spot) the possibility that the work may be in

breach of EU directives (FFH Directive)?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

The Commission has not been informed of the developments described by the Honourable Member. It will
initiate an investigation as to whether the requirements of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) have been respected in this case.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 58 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1528/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Creation of a Joint Inspection Structure (JIS) and proposal to set up the Community Fisheries

Control Agency in Galicia

On 21 March this year the Commission published a Communication to the Council and the European
Parliament ‘Towards uniform and effective implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy’ in which it
included a proposal to introduce a Community system to step up inspection and surveillance in the sphere
of fisheries (1). According to some media sources this proposal has caused a conflict of competence
between the Commission and the Member States, since a number of the latter consider that the proposal
encroaches on national competences. What is the current state of play as far as this proposal is concerned?

The Communication suggests setting up a Community Fisheries Control Agency (CFCA) and defines its
functions and tasks. What conditions should a European city meet in order to qualify as the location for
this agency?

Does the Commission not consider that, although the Member States are responsible for deciding on the
location of the Community Fisheries Control Agency,
it should propose that it be set up in a region
particularly important for the fisheries sector?

In this case, Galicia fulfils all the conditions, in view of its strategy position on the Atlantic coast, the fact
that it is a European fisheries power and that a large proportion of international sea traffic passes along its
coastline, and bearing in mind the economic consequences of the serious accident caused by the ‘Prestige’
for the region’s fisheries sector.

Is the Commission considering the possibility of proposing Galicia as the location of the Community
Fisheries Control Agency?

(1) COM(2003) 130 final.