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: Germany, application of EU law, deforestation, environmental protection, protected area

C 65 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

reaffirmed by the Court of Justice in an administrative decision. As the Honourable Member is aware,
Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors consequently resumed use of the system.
The Commission’s decision of June 2002 to suspend the use of the weighted transfer system is still in
force.

When the Council decided to delete the remark referred to in the Honourable Member’s question, the facts
that the Commission had not been consulted or informed, and no explanation had been provided in the
Explanatory Memorandum, prompted the Director General for Budget to indicate to the President of the
Council’s Budget Committee on 7 May 2002 that, the Commission considered the procedure to be ‘not
normal’. It is clear, however, that the remark on the budget item in question had no effect on the legality
of the matter, and the deletion of the remark had no effect on it either, as is evident from the fact that the
credit (similar to that for previous years) was maintained.

(2004/C 65 E/094)

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’.

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)?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/85

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

The Honourable Member is aware that under Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) any plan or project likely to have a
significant effect on a Site of Community Importance shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. Where there is a negative assessment,
a project may only be authorised if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest and no
alternative solutions exist. In such a case the Member State shall take all compensatory measures necessary
to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

In the present case the Commission has not been informed of the developments described by the
Honourable Member. However, based on the documents received from the Honourable Member the
Commission has gathered additional information on these developments.

According to this information the situation appears to be as follows:

(cid:1) The clearing of trees and bushes described by the Honourable Member was authorised by the
competent German authorities (Kreisverwaltung). These authorisations were based on an assessment of
the implications of the treecutting on the conservation objectives of the sites. The assessment arrived
at the conclusion that there would be significant impacts on the sites and that therefore compensatory
measures were necessary. In spite of the significant impacts the measures were authorised for reasons
of public security, namely flood prevention. However, it is not clear whether compensatory measures
have been defined or implemented.

(cid:1) To determine whether the requirements of Article 6 (3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC have been
complied with, in particular with regard to compensation measures, the Commission, therefore, will
open an own initiative investigation into this case and contact the German authorities.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 65 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/03

by Joan Vallvé (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Linguistic diversity

I welcome Commissioner Viviane Reding’s words (Agence Europe, April 12) advocating language diversity
and considering that English is not necessarily the topmost priority. Ms Reding cited her own country,
Luxembourg, where the ‘mother tongue is Luxembourgish, where the languages of our German-speaking
and French-speaking neighbours are to be heard everywhere, and where you also hear the languages of the
large Italian and Portuguese communities. English is also learnt. And we are well-armed for life in a
multilingual society (…). Do you really think it is better for the people of Luxembourg to begin by
learning English rather than the languages of their neighbours? And for those who speak a minority
language, is the top priority really that of learning English?’, she asked, noting that the ‘linguistic situation
is so different in the different regions of Europe that it is not possible to make the same choice for all’.

The Comenius Language Projects’ aim is to encourage participation of all linguistic groups, as we can read
in the Guidelines for applicants 2000 under ‘Promotion of linguistic diversity’: Comenius Language Projects
seek to promote linguistic diversity in Europe by encouraging the use of all the official languages of the
European Union (plus Irish and Luxembourgish),
in particular the less widely used and less taught
languages of the European Union. The national languages of the EFTA/EEA countries and of the accession
candidate countries participating in Socrates are also eligible.

In Comenius Language Projects at least one of the two partners will normally represent one of the less
widely used and less taught languages. Many pupils will thus have an opportunity to get to know a
language which is not on their curriculum. Indeed, this is seen as one of the main aspects of the European