WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Authorisation by the Commission of projects harmful to the Natura 2000 network.
Date: 2003-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, coal mining, decision-making, development plan, environmental impact, harbour installation, project management, protected area, rail network

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/41

The company had drawn up a protocol guaranteeing that it would stay in Ponte de Lima for at least
20 years, but it closed down after only 12 years.

Management blamed the closure on a shortage of orders, but in actual fact the orders had been passed on
to other factories in Romania and Turkey, where labour is cheaper.

In May 2002 Schuh-Union already closed the factory at Maia (Portugal) in order to relocate to Romania,
depriving 460 workers of their jobs. At that time management claimed that the closure would enable the
factory at Ponte de Lima to maintain its full production capacity and retain all the staff.

Nevertheless, in October 2002 Schuh-Union closed the cutting and stitching section of its Ponte de Lima
factory, which immediately made 172 workers redundant.

It should be noted that 97 % of the staff are women aged between 40 and 50, who will naturally find it
difficult to find other jobs, especially in a town where there are few job opportunities.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) whether Schuh-Union has received any Community funding;

(cid:1) if so, how much it received, when, and what conditions were imposed on the company?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that Schuh-Union received no aid from the
European Social Fund but did receive from the European Regional Development Fund PTE 199 431 000
(part-financing of a total cost of PTE 280 735 000) for two projects, one approved on 12 November 1992
under
the programme for
modernisation of the economic fabric.

the PNICIAP programme and one approved on 2 March 1998 under

is,
These aids was allocated by Portugal under aid schemes approved by the Commission. Portugal
however, responsible for seeing that
the Community rules on competition are respected and the
Commission will ask her authorities to check if this has been the case in connection with the aid granted
to Schuh-Union.

The location of enterprises is primarily a matter for those who head them. However, under the new
regulatory provisions on Structural Fund financing for the 2000-2006 programming period, Member States
are to ensure that during the five years following the decision to grant aid no substantial project
including no ‘change of location in a productive activity’, occurs (1). The Guidelines on
modification,
national regional aid adopted by the Commission on 10 March 1998 require both capital assets financed
and jobs created to be maintained for at least five years from the time at which the aided investment was
made.

(1) Article 30(4)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1670/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Authorisation by the Commission of projects harmful to the Natura 2000 network

At the end of April the Spanish press reported the Commission’s decision to authorise, for economic
reasons, three projects with a serious impact on the environment. The projects are the extension of the

C 78 E/42

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

port of Rotterdam (Holland), the exploitation of a coalmining area in North Rhineland (Germany) and the
building of a new railway line in Bothnia (Sweden). Apparently,
in all three cases the Community
authorities acknowledged that the projects would have ‘harmful effects’ on protected areas included in the
Natura 2000 network.

The decision has aroused great concern among the population and ecologists because, although the
deterioration of any natural area is a serious matter, the destruction, for economic reasons, of the Natura
2000 zones which the European Union itself decided to create is even more serious.

Bearing in mind that according to the regulations governing the Community funds projects which damage
protected areas or the environment in general cannot receive aid.

Can the Commission say whether it can confirm or deny the information published about the three
projects referred to above?

Whether these projects receive any kind of Community funding?

Whether it can guarantee that the principle of trying to find sustainable alternatives was observed
appropriately in each of the cases mentioned?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

On 24 April 2003 the Commission adopted four opinions according to Article 6 (4) of Council Directive
92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (the
‘Habitats Directive’). These opinions concern an operational master plan of the Prosper Haniel Colliery near
Bottrop (North Rhine-Westfalia), a planned industrial area near Siegen/Freudenberg (North Rhine-
Westfalia), the Development Plan ‘Mainport Rotterdam’ and the Bothnia Railway project from Nordmaling
to Umea (Sweden).

According to article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, a plan or a project may be carried out in spite of
significant negative implications for a Natura 2000 site, in the absence of alternative solutions, if it is
justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
including those of a social or economic
nature. In this case the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Where the affected site hosts a priority natural habitat type
and/or a priority species, and if considerations relating to human health, public safety or beneficial
consequences of primary importance for the environment cannot be invoked, the project can be justified,
further to an opinion from the Commission, by other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

The Commission can confirm that, for all three development projects referred to by the Honourable
Member, favourable opinions were issued on 24 April 2003, stating that the respective development
projects can be executed for reasons of overriding public interest on the condition that the necessary
compensation measures to ensure the overall protection of the coherence of Natura 2000 shall be taken. A
negative opinion was issued in relation with the planned industrial area near Trupbach/Siegen, as in this
case, neither the search for alternative solutions, nor the provision of compensatory measures had been
dealt with in a satisfactory way. The four Commission opinions include relevant information on the
projects and their effects, as well as on the examination of possible alternative solutions and the planned
compensatory measures. The Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the detailed text of
the opinions for more details on these aspects.

In all three cases mentioned by the Honourable Member the provisions of article 6(4) of the Habitats
Directive for authorising projects that may lead to a significant deterioration of a Natura 2000 site were
applied and a favourable opinion was issued by the Commission. As a consequence, and insofar as other
aspects of the Union’s environmental legislation are respected, there is no legal obstacle from this point of
view for a possible Community funding for these projects. However, so far the Commission has not
received any request in this sense.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.