WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/03 by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission. Overflying Brussels — extension of Zaventem airport.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, air traffic, airport, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, noise

C 78 E/832

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

re-use of packaging. While this study will not concern the comparison between various take-back systems
for one-way packaging directly, it may address effects by such systems of encouraging re-usable packaging.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 78 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

(5 December 2003)

The cost of an adult passport in the United Kingdom has increased greatly since 1997, and today costs
over GBP 40 to purchase.

Can the Commission detail the cost of an adult passport in the 14 other Member States, given that a
passport serves as both a national and an EU document?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Fixing the cost of passports is a competence which belongs to Member States.

The cost of obtaining a passport within each Member State may vary according to several factors, notably
the duration of its validity.

A comparative analysis shows that the cost of the British passport is very close to the average of the other
Member States, which is around EUR 50.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member and the Parliament’s Secretariat with a table
detailing the cost of passports in all Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0886)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Overflying Brussels (cid:1) extension of Zaventem airport

The new Belgian Minister of Transport Bert Anciaux is about to launch a plan to move a number of flight
paths from the area near ‘Zaventem National’ airport to the city of Brussels, following a decision taken in
June 2003 by an administrative court (Cour d’Arbitrage) calling for flights to be spread over several routes,
in response to complaints from 47 people living in the vicinity of the airport.

According to articles published in the Belgian press this decision was taken in the name of a principle of
‘solidarity’ according to which the noise pollution should be spread among all the inhabitants of Brussels.

Can the Commission say whether the initiatives taken by the Minister and the decision of the ‘Cour

1.
d’Arbitrage’ are in line with the Community directives on the subject?

Is it normal that the new flight plan for Brussels airport should be implemented without assessing the

2.
impact of the noise it would generate?

Can the Commission say whether

3.
environmental standards?

the extension of Zaventem airport meets all

the current

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/833

In any event, can the Commission say whether the Minister’s initiative is compatible with the status
4.
of Brussels as the seat of the Community institutions and, above all, whether moving a substantial
proportion of the air traffic to densely populated areas does not pose additional security problems
(terrorist acts) for the European and international institutions based in Brussels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

There exists no Community legislation which establishes detailed provisions concerning decisions by
competent authorities on flight paths. Although, with the adoption of Directive 2002/49/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and management of environmental
noise (1), harmonised noise descriptors are introduced (by 18 July 2005), as well as the obligation to
prepare noise maps (by 30 June 2007) and action plans (by 18 July 2002), that Directive does not impose
limit values for ambient noise. In the absence of such mandatory Community norms, it is not possible for
the Commission to intervene solely on the basis of possible excessive exposure to noise.

According to the information which was published in the Belgian press, a working group (composed of
experts from BIAC, Belgocontrol and the Belgian Directorate-General of aviation) assisted the Belgian
Minister of Transport in preparing an action plan, whilst further work regarding the establishment of a
cadastral survey of aviation noise is underway.

Since, in the present context, Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), as amended by Council Directive 97/
11/EC of 3 March 1997 (3)
relates to the
construction of airports and airport changes/extensions, the new flight plan does not seem to be subject
to the requirements of this Directive.

(EIA) (cid:1) Directive),

Impact Assessment

(Environmental

There are no other environmental standards established for airports. Airport changes/extensions are
covered by the EIA Directive. This Directive provides that Member States must ensure that, before
development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter
alia’, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects.
According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, an EIA was carried out for the extension
of Zaventem airport in the beginning of the 90’s. Changes such as the introduction of new flight plans or
the allocation of air router to existing runways are not covered by the definition of ‘a project’ under the
EIA Directive.

The Commission is currently investigating whether the public consultation foreseen under Flemish
legislation meets the requirements of the EIA Directive.

The Commission will continue to monitor all relevant developments under Community law in this file.

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0887)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3606/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Special conditions for transport by heavy goods vehicles

The cheapest and simplest way of transporting goods has always been by truck. At the same time, the
resulting environmental pollution has been getting worse each year. The far more environmentally friendly
alternative of rail transport cannot compete with the comparatively cheap option of transport by road and
is therefore unacceptable to many companies.