WRITTEN QUESTION P-2947/03 by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Trupbach industrial estate.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: North Rhine-Westphalia, decision-making, environmental protection, location of industry, project evaluation, protected area

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/195

selection criteria laid down in each programme. Obviously the Commission has a responsibility to see
that the entire procedure conforms with Community law. But all questions of the priority to be given
to and the desirability of aiding particular projects are a matter for the representative bodies of the
Member States, regions and other relevant bodies.

(2004/C 78 E/0200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2946/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Specific programme for research

In the European Commission explanatory memorandum of the proposal for a Council Decision amending
decision 2002/834/EC on the specific programme for research, technological development and demon-
stration ‘Integrating and strengthening the European research area’ (2002-2006) (1), it is said that in the
course of the ethical review, there will be an assessment of whether a free, express and informed consent
of the donors has been obtained.

As it is intended that the stem cells for research will be obtained from early stage human embryos, can the
Commission confirm:

(cid:1) Who will donate the stem cells, from whom will they be harvested?

(cid:1) How will it intend to obtain consent from these human beings who will donate their stem cells, who

are not able to communicate verbally or orally at this specific stage of their development?

(1) COM(2003) 390 final.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that in the context of the Commission
proposal (1) and the condition (e) of the annex it refers to, the ‘donor(s)’ refers to the person(s) who is
legally responsible for the human embryo created as a result of medically-assisted in vitro fertilisation
designed to induce pregnancy and no longer to be used for that purpose (supernumerary embryo).

legally responsible is defined differently in national

The person(s)
legislations regulating in vitro
fertilisation. For that reason, the Commission proposal (2), in the context of subsidiarity, makes reference
to national
legislation which imposes specific requirements concerning the consent procedure of the
donor(s).

(1) COM(2003) 390.
(2) COM(2003) 390 final (cid:1) Proposal

programme for
European research area’ (2002-2006).

research,

technological development and demonstration:

for a Council decision amending decision 2002/834/EC on the specific
‘Integrating and strengthening the

(2004/C 78 E/0201)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2947/03

by Peter Liese (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Trupbach industrial estate

On 24 April 2003, the Commission delivered its opinion on the plan for an industrial estate on the former
military training area of Trupbach in Siegerland. The Commission rejected the plan while, on the same

C 78 E/196

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

day, three other projects on FFH sites (Rotterdam port, a mine at Bottrop, a railway line in Sweden) were
given the go-ahead on grounds of overriding public interest. The Commission justifies its rejection of the
plan, in particular, on the grounds that it was not adequately shown that there were no alternatives to the
proposal and that the competent authorities (the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen) did not propose any
compensatory measures.

Is it correct that the opinion on the Trupbach industrial estate is the only negative opinion delivered by
the Commission on a project planned within an FFH site? Is it correct that decisive reasons for the negative
opinion were that no compensatory measures were proposed and that it was not adequately shown why
there were no alternatives to this project? Was this a case of failure to apply the FFH Directive properly?
Can the Commission confirm that an application which put forward better reasons why there are no
alternatives available and which proposed compensatory measures would possibly hold out the prospect of
a positive opinion from the Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2003)

Since the adoption of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) the Commission has issued six opinions in accordance to Article 6,
paragraph 4 of that Directive. The Commission opinion of 24 April 2003 concerning the creation of a
new industrial area ‘Siegerland’ within the former military training area Trupbach near Siegen/Freudenberg
(North Rhine-Westfalia) is the only negative opinion issued so far in this context.

On the basis of the information available, the Commission concluded that a number of alternative sites
exist that may represent relevant alternatives for providing additional space for industrial settlement to the
city of Siegen. According to Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC, the absence of alternative solutions is a
first condition for authorising projects that have a significant negative impact on sites protected by this
Directive.

The Commission also expressed the view that there was no evidence for particular imperative reasons of
overriding public interest for creating one large additional industrial area on the Trupbach site, whereas the
absence of alternative sites in the region had not been clearly demonstrated.

The provision of compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is
protected is an additional condition to the authorisation of projects that have a significant negative effect
on sites protected by Directive 92/43/EEC, also when there is no alternative to a project and when a
project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest. This condition was not fulfilled.

In relation to the planned industrial site in Trupbach (Siegen), Directive 92/43/EEC was correctly applied in
so far that a Commission opinion was requested according to Article 6(4) of the Directive and that the
project was not authorised by the competent authorities before an opinion was issued. However, as it was
laid out above, not all the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) were applied in a satisfactory way. Detailed
guidelines on the correct application of these provisions were published by the Commission in November
2000 and in 2001 (2).

Any possible new request for a revised Commission opinion on the planned industrial area would only
make sense if clear evidence could be provided, demonstrating that there are no feasible alternatives to the
planned project, that the project is justified by imperative reasons of overriding public interest and that all
compensatory measures are being taken that are necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura
2000 is protected. In the event of a renewed application the Commission will base its opinion on an
analysis of the information presented related to these elements.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) Managing Natura 2000 Sites (cid:1) The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/EEC (Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, 2000) and Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting
Natura 2000 sites (Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/
43/EEC (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001).