WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/03 by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE)and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2003-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brandenburg, energy resources, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU), lignite, mining operation, project management, protection of animal life, stagnant water

C 78 E/182

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2864/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(22 September 2003)

Subject: Data and sources indicating the role currently played by the Vatican’s financial system in the

payment of interest to natural persons

The answer to question E-2426/03 (1) given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of
the Commission on
5 September 2003 states that the Commission can only say that the role currently played by the Vatican’s
financial system in the payment of interest to natural persons does not appear to be jeopardising the
competitiveness of European financial markets.

Can the Commission say what data it has to support this claim and what their source was?

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

The Commission would refer to the reply to Written Question E-1914/02 put by the Honourable
Member (1). The finding that a commercial financial sector does not currently exist on the territory of the
Vatican City State (the only bank being the IOR (Istituto Opere di Religione), which also is the central
bank) does indeed suggest that management of the assets of EU-resident natural persons is unlikely to be
taking place on a scale comparable with that of the six non-EU countries to which the Council has given
priority in starting discussions on taxation of savings (the United States, Switzerland, Liechtenstein,
Monaco, Andorra, and San Maríno).

financial centres was, moreover,
The priority given to a limited number of particularly significant
inevitable given that
the Council had opted to establish a link between the (early) adoption and
implementation of the Community Directive and receipt of adequate assurances from the third countries
concerned that they would introduce measures equivalent to those of the directive in their territory.
Entering into immediate contacts with a larger number of financial centres would have been likely, under
these conditions, to set back by several years not only the date of application of the Directive on taxation
of savings, but also that of the other components of the tax package (the code of conduct on company
taxation and the Directive on interest and royalties). The Commission hopes that the Honourable Member
can agree that such a delay would be undesirable in the interests of the smooth operation of the internal
market.

The Commission has undertaken to collect
Honourable Member and will inform him directly of the outcome.

the available information on the matter raised by the

(1) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2865/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE)
and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Destruction of unique parts of the European natural heritage in Brandenburg, Federal Republic of

Germany

In its answer to Elisabeth Schroedter’s question (E-3577/02 (1)) of 27 January 2003 and in the answer to
complaint 2000/4731, the Commission indicates that the Lacoma wetlands should have been proposed as
a site of Community importance pursuant to Article 4(1) and Annex III of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC (2)

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/183

on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) because of its exceptional natural
beauty and its large population of fire-bellied toads (Bombina bombina), which is possibly unique in
Europe. The German Government, however, did not prompt the Land of Brandenburg to do so. Once the
approval procedure is concluded, therefore, the area is in danger of being completely drained so that
lignite can be mined for the generation of electricity by the Swedish firm Vattenfall.

1.
Following its assessment (see the answer to question E-3577/02), has the Commission reached the
conclusion that the German Government did not need to propose the Lacoma wetlands, despite the fact
that the Commission itself had noted their importance to the European natural heritage? Does it also
consider that their destruction was inconsequential in relation to the objectives of Natura 2000, even
though the unusually large population of fire-bellied toads probably represents a source population for
other smaller populations?

Does the Commission adhere to its view expressed in the answer to complaint 2000/4731 that, in a
2.
liberalised European energy market, Vattenfall’s lignite mining constitutes ‘imperative reasons’ even though
those reasons must relate to ‘human health’ and ‘public safety’ within the meaning of Article 6(4) of the
FFH Directive owing to the presence of the priority species Osmoderma Eremita, and despite evidence that
conditions in the Lacoma wetlands are favourable for the development of Osmoderma Eremita and other
species listed in Annex II of the FFH Directive? If so, how does the Commission justify its view in the
context of the FFH Directive (92/43/EEC) and its responsibility to reveal hidden distortions of competition
on the European market?

Does the Commission intend to abandon the proceedings for infringement of the Treaty even though
3.
there is as yet no guarantee, in legal or financial terms, that compensatory measures will be forthcoming?
If so, why?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 108.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2003)

The Commission was made aware by means of a complaint of the natural values of the site ‘Lacomaer
Teiche und Hammergraben’, which is likely to be significantly affected by the impending implementation
of a lignite mining project. The complainant considered that this site should have been proposed as a Site
of Community Importance under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural
habitats and wild fauna and flora (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Directive’). The Commission, after a
preliminary assessment, shared this view. This view of the Commission was based in particular on the
presence of an important population of the Fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina), which, however, is not a
priority species under the above Directive.

As a result of its investigation of the complaint, the Commission came to the conclusion that even if the
site had been proposed by the German authorities, this would not have provided any added value for the
Natura 2000 network in the long term since the mining project could be implemented in compliance with
the Directive (absence of alternatives, overriding public interest and
Article 6(4) 1st sentence of
compensation).

There is no viable alternative to the lignite mining project intended to be implemented on that site. This
project is of huge importance for the regional economy and energy security. It is worth noting that mining
enterprise promoting the project enjoys legal protection as the mining project was, in principle, authorised
before the German reunification. Finally, substantial compensation measures are being designed.

Since the Commission has received subsequent information indicating that a priority species listed in the
Annexes of the Directive, namely osmoderma eremita, a wood beetle, has been found at the site, the
Commission has again made representations to the German Government in order to gather information
with a view to deciding on further steps to be taken to ensure appropriate compliance with Community
environmental law. Until now the Commission has not taken any decision on this case.