WRITTEN QUESTION P-0339/04 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Wind turbines.
Date: 2004-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bird, environmental impact, impact study, power plant, protection of animal life, wind energy

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/365

This does not reflect the view by Parliament, which not only recognises the Union’s competence to
4.
determine the conditions for financing this type of research but in addition, on 19 November 2003,
expressed a majority position in favour of Community financing of research involving the removal of stem
cells from human embryos (1).

(1) http://www3.europarl.eu.int/omk/omnsapir.so/pv2?PRG=CAL-
DOC&FILE=20031119&LANGUE=EN&TPV=PROV&LAST-
CHAP=12&SDOCTA=10&TXTLST=1&Type_Doc=FIRST&POS=1

(2004/C 84 E/0423)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0339/04

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(4 February 2004)

Subject: Wind turbines

Although wind power has been called into question in the countries in which it originated (including
Germany and Denmark), numerous wind power projects are being developed in France.

Recent scientific reports would seem to indicate that in Germany almost 500 000 birds are killed by wind
turbines every year.

Does the Commission have in its possession serious scientific studies on the environmental impact of these
wind turbines, including their impact on migratory birds?

Furthermore, in the light of the information available to the Commission, is the installation of these wind
turbines compatible with the conservation of migratory bird populations, not least as they are installed on
migration paths and in wintering areas and sensitive breeding grounds?

Under these circumstances, is the operator obliged to comply with a precise set of specifications endorsed
by the European Commission?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2004)

The Commission is aware that there are concerns about the potential conflicts between wind farm
developments and nature conservation objectives in certain areas, especially in relation to wild birds.
Different studies have identified potential hazards such as disturbance, collision mortality and direct loss of
habitat arising from such developments (1).

The compatibility of wind farm developments with the requirement of bird protection under EU nature
legislation needs to be judged on a case by case basis. The existing knowledge does suggest that the
concerns raised by the Honourable Member may be significant especially where sites proposed are on
recognised bird migration routes.

Any proposed wind farm project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment must be
subject to an environmental impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
the assessment of certain public and private projects on the environment as amended by Council Directive
97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2). Such an impact assessment should identify, describe and assess the direct
effects of a project on, inter alia, flora and fauna.

Where the development may affect a Natura 2000 area (3) the project must be subject to an assessment in
accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC. This provides substantive and
procedural safeguards to ensure that damaging developments are not allowed to affect Natura 2000 sites
unless they can be justified, in the absence of alternative solutions, to be of overriding public interest.
Where the site hosts priority species or habitat
the only
considerations that may be raised are those of human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of

types listed under Directive 92/43/EEC,

C 84 E/366

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

primary importance for the environment or further to an opinion of the Commission to other imperative
reasons of overriding public interest.

Finalising the establishment of the network of Special Protection Areas in France and other Member States
will provide a strong legal basis to ensure that potentially damaging developments in areas of high
conservation importance for wild birds are brought under this protection regime.

(1) See for example the review prepared by BirdLife International on behalf of the Berne Convention at:

http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_Co-operation/Environment/Nature_and_biological_diversity/Nature_protection/
sc22_inf30erev.pdf

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 and OJ L 73, 14.3.1997 respectively.
(3) Special Protection Areas under Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 and Special Areas of Conservation under Article 4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0344/04

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2004)

Subject:

‘Conseillers hors classe’

Can the Commission state how many former officials are working for DG ADMIN as so-called ‘conseillers
hors classe’?

How many of these officials temporarily suspended from work are to be found in the Commission’s other
Directorate-Generals?

Can the Commission confirm, in this context, how many officials are currently suspended as a result of
ongoing disciplinary procedures, whilst continuing to be on the payroll?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2004)

As an appointing authority the Commission may, under the provisions of the Staff Regulations and
associated operational rules, decide to reassign an official from a management position to a non-manage-
ment function at any time, if it considers this to be in the interest of the service. In this context, the
non-managerial function for Directors General and Deputy Directors General
is ‘hors classe adviser’.
An assignment to these functions can be for various periods of time and the tasks and responsibilities of
these officials are defined by the relevant appointing authority.

As the Commission has previously made clear, a ‘Conseiller hors classe’ is not a ‘former’ official and such a
designation certainly does not carry the meaning that the official is ‘suspended from work’.

In the case of suspension, which a provisional measure of a disciplinary nature and not an administrative
measure, the official concerned ceases to exercise any function in the institution for the duration of the
suspension. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, the appointing authority may decide to suspend an
official only when allegations of serious misconduct are brought against that person

Currently, two ‘hors classe advisers’ are working for Directorate General (DG) Personnel and Adminis-
tration and three others are employed in DG Development, DG Regional Policy, and in the Office for
administration and payment of individual entitlements respectively.