WRITTEN QUESTION P-3037/03 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Breach of EU environmental legislation in the expansion of Frankfurt airport.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Hesse, accident prevention, airport, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, industrial hazard, project evaluation

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/455

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2003)

The Commission is aware of the use of mechanised dredges in most of Community waters from the Baltic
to the Mediterranean sea. This technique is very often used for fishing molluscs and to wash out deeper-
sited shells, usually by small vessels fishing near the shore.

The Commission is aware of some studies on the impact of this fishing gear on the environment. Detailed
studies on long-term effects of this fishing method are lacking. There is however, some evidence of
environmental effects in the short-term.

At present there is no Community legislation in the field of fisheries on the use of mechanised dredges.
Where such measures are now applicable, these are established for local fisheries by Member States.

In certain cases, the use of these devices could be restricted on the grounds of Community legislation in
the field of nature protection.

(2004/C 78 E/0482)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3037/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Breach of EU environmental legislation in the expansion of Frankfurt airport

Plans for the expansion of Frankfurt airport clearly contravene EU legislation on the environment in
several respects. In particular, the risk of accident posed by a plane crashing onto the Ticona chemical
factory is extremely serious.

1.
Does the Commission share the view that the EU Seveso II Directive must be applied in connection
with plans for the north-west runway, given the close proximity of potentially hazardous sites (e.g. Ticona)?

2.

Does the Commission agree that the EIA Directive must be complied with in the planning phase?

Does the Commission share the view that the EU Environmental

3.
Directives must be complied with in the procedure?

Information, FFH and Birds

Does the Commission share the view that misleading studies are not suitable for assessing the

4.
accident risk posed by a plane crashing onto a chemical factory?

5. What steps will the Commission take to ensure that EU legislation is complied with in connection
with the plans for the expansion of Frankfurt airport?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2003)

1.
According to Article 12 of the Seveso II (cid:1) Directive, Member States shall ensure that the objectives
of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into account in
their land-use policies. They shall pursue those objectives, amongst others, through controls on new
developments such as transport links in the vicinity of existing establishments, where the siting or
developments are such as to increase the risk or consequences of a major accident.

C 78 E/456

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The company ‘Technical Polymers Ticona’, situated at one end of the planned runway, is a Seveso top-tier
establishment. Therefore, the Commission shares the view that the Seveso II -Directive, and in particular
Article 12, must be respected in connection with the extension of Frankfurt Airport.

Moreover, as Frankfurt Airport itself is a Seveso top-tier establishment, in addition to the requirements
relating to land-use planning, possible ‘domino effects’ between Ticona and Frankfurt Airport have to be
examined.

impact assessment (EIA),

According to Article 4(2) and Annexes I No 13 and II No 7(a) of the amended EIA-Directive, the
2.
extension of airports with a runway length of 2 100 metre (m) or more has to be made subject to an
environmental
if the Member States so decide on the basis of an individual
assessment or according to national criteria and thresholds. The decision has to be taken in accordance
with the criteria laid down in Annex III of the EIA-Directive. However, according to Articles 1 and 4, the
EIA-Directive applies only to ‘projects’ and not to ‘plans’. The Commission has, therefore, taken the view
that the Directive is only applicable in the permit procedure, not during earlier planning phases of a
project.

3.
The Commission has not received any information as to the possible relevance of Council Directive
90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990, on the freedom of access to information on the environment (1). The
information by the complainants regarding possible violations of the Birds and the Habitats Directives is
currently being assessed. The assessment has not yet been completed.

4.
According to Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive, Member States shall ensure that all competent
authorities and planning authorities, responsible for land-use planning decisions, set up appropriate
consultation procedures. These procedures shall be designed to ensure that technical advice, on the risks
arising from the establishment, is available, either on a case-by-case or on a generic basis, when decisions
are taken. It goes without saying that misleading studies are never suitable for an assessment of accidental
risks.

Should the Commission find that Community legislation is being violated, appropriate steps will be

5.
taken, e.g. the opening of infringement proceedings against Germany.

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.

(2004/C 78 E/0483)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3059/03

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: EU funding for marine conservation

Given that Ireland lacks any dedicated facility, in the form of a publicly accessible marine conservation
area, through which it can play a full role in an EU network of marine mammal rescue and oil spill
response, and given that consequently it is ill-equipped to fulfil its international responsibilities.

Can the Commission advise on whether there are any EU funds available for the purpose of developing
such a conservation centre to service the country?

Can the Commission advise on the availability of EU funding to support the work of the Irish Seal
Sanctuary, a wildlife conservation NGO run entirely by volunteers for the past 20 years in this area but
now without sources of finance to continue its operations?