WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/03 by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE)and Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling along the A 12 (Tyrol).
Date: 2003-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Tyrol, approximation of laws, commercial vehicle, free movement of goods, international road transport, summary procedure, traffic control, traffic regulations

C 51 E/228

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Directive 71/320/EEC does not differentiate between different types of drive, although, it can perhaps be
assumed that the provisions have been drafted without specific consideration of hydrostatic drives, as these
are not normally used on road vehicles. If it is technically impossible to type-approve a braking system for
a vehicle with a hydrostatic drive because the test in Directive 71/320/EEC are not appropriate, then the
manufacturer can ask the approval authority to seek a derogation from the provisions of Directive 71/320/
EC in accordance with Article 8(2)(c) of Council Directive 70/156/EEC.

To conclude, N category vehicles are not subject to European whole vehicle type approval, therefore the
Danish authorities are entitled to operate their own national type-approval scheme for such vehicles. Any
such scheme must not mandate provisions that are more onerous than those contained in the relevant
Community Directives, and approvals granted in conformity with the Community Directives must be
accepted. From the information provided, the Danish Road Safety and Transport Agency classification of
the LADOG vehicle as an N2 category vehicle, and hence requiring ABS to be fitted, is consistent with the
relevant Community Directives. The Danish Authorities are not obliged to recognise national approvals
granted in other Member States, as the provisions upon which those approvals are granted may not be the
same as those required in Denmark. Danish authorities must however justify any refusal on necessary and
proportionate grounds, according to the internal market rules.

(1) OJ L 202, 6.9.1971.
(2) OJ L 267, 4.10.2002.
(3) OJ L 42, 23.2.1970.

(2004/C 51 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2237/03

by Luigi Cocilovo (PPE-DE)
and Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling along the A 12 (Tyrol)

The Governor of the Tyrol has signed an order prohibiting heavy vehicles (over 7,5 tonnes) from travelling
along the A 12 from Km 20,4 (Kundl) to 66,8 (Ampass). This decision clearly infringes Community rules,
disregards the fundamental principles of free movement of goods and places an additional dangerous
restriction on traffic.

What steps does the Commission intend to take to remedy this serious situation, which infringes the
principle of the free movement of goods inside the European Union?

What measures has the Commission considered to ensure that such actions are not taken again in future?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

On 23 July 2003, considering that the ban on heavy goods vehicles carrying certain types of goods on a
section of the A 12 motorway, in effect as of 1 August 2003, infringed the rules on freedom to provide
services and represented an obstacle to the free movement of goods within the European Union, the
Commission decided to being a case against Austria before the Court of Justice. In view of the fact that,
after the infringement proceedings were instituted by the Commission on 24 June 2003 and the reasoned
opinion sent on 9 July 2003, the Austrian Government failed to provide sufficient information, the
Commission decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice, requesting that the measures at issue be
suspended temporarily. On 30 July 2003, the President of the Court of Justice issued an order to the effect
that Austria should cease to apply the legislation challenged by the Commission pending a ruling in the
above proceedings.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/229

As to the second question posed by the Honourable Members, the Commission would point out that, in
1998, it presented a proposal for a Directive on a transparent system of harmonised rules for driving
restrictions on heavy goods vehicles involved in international transport on designated roads (1) on the
trans-European transport network. An amended proposal was presented in 2000. This new proposal,
currently before the Council and Parliament, provides for the harmonisation of heavy goods vehicle traffic
restrictions and permits Member States to impose traffic restrictions only at specific times of day, albeit
with a degree of leeway.

The framework proposed by the Commission will help the transport industry to operate more efficiently,
benefiting all the sectors which rely on the carriage of goods by road.

(1) OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/03

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)
and Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Status of Complaint 2002/4893 SG (2002) A/7230/2 concerning the environmental effects of the

extension of San Sebastián airport

In its reply to Written Question E-1701/02 (1), the Commission announced the launch of an investigation
into the effects the planned extension of San Sebastián airport would have on the SCI ES-2120015
(Playaundi, Marismas de Bidasoa) and on IBA 37 (Txingudi, Estuario del Bidasoa). In the same reply, the
Commission also recognised a violation of Directive 2001/42/EC, since the master plan had been drawn
up without the requisite environmental assessment having been performed.

Bearing in mind that:

(cid:1) work has already started on the first phase of the master plan, before the relevant environmental

impact assessment has been conducted,

(cid:1) the Commission has, via the LIFE Programme, made a 40 % contribution to the restructuring of the

specially protected areas threatened by the airport extension work,

(cid:1) it is anticipated that if the master plan were to be implemented in its current format it would affect

30 % of Playaundi-Txingudi.

Could the Commission indicate what stage it has reached in its investigations into the issues affecting
Playaundi-Txingudi? Since work has already started on the first phase of the master plan, does it not feel it
especially urgent to intervene with the Spanish authorities in order to ensure the protection of the areas in
question?

Could it specify its position on the charge of violation of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) on the conservation of
habitats, levelled in the complaint submitted by the Coordinadora Contra la Ampliación del Aeropuerto?

Could it specify its position on the charge of violation of Directive 79/409/EEC (3) on the conservation of
wild birds, levelled in the complaint submitted by the Coordinadora Contra la Ampliación del Aeropuerto?

Does it not feel that there has also been an infringement with regard to the relationship between Directive
92/43/EEC (habitats) and Directive 2001/42/EC (4)
the
assessment should be performed before a plan is implemented, and should draw on the information
obtained at the end of the requisite information process?

impact), which requires that

(environmental

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 213.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.