WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/04 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000).
Date: 2004-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, environmental law, infectious disease, nature reserve, protection of animal life, tourist infrastructure

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/881

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government concerning the rights of Irish/EU citizens
whose parents face deportation? Does the Commission agree that this policy discriminates against those
child citizens whose parents are third-country nationals?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The situation described by the Honourable Member involves children born in Ireland to parents who are
nationals of non-Member States. Like anyone born in Ireland, these children have acquired Irish nationality
by ius soli. On the question of the expulsion of nationals, Article 3(1) of Protocol No 4 to the European
Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of
a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’.

However, in so far as these children have not exercised the right to free movement by leaving Ireland to
reside in another Member State, it is not possible to apply the principles of Community law in this case.
Consequently, Irish law (cid:1) even on expulsion (cid:1) will apply to the situation of children born in Ireland to
nationals of non-Member States, and the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by
the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 84 E/0975)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0791/04

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Encroachments on Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (Natura 2000)

In 1999, the Portuguese government designated the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve (to the south of Faro, in
the Algarve) as a special protection zone in accordance with Article 4 of the Birds Directive (79/409/
EEC (1)). Under pressure from the advancing tourism industry, Ria Formosa seems fated to become a pawn
in the game of project developers who (cid:1) according to semi-official plans (cid:1) wish to develop a total of 21
golf courses and 9 marinas, in addition to 10 building sites intended for flats and villas (Source: Expresso,
11 August 2001).

In recent years, some 25 species of brooding migratory birds have wholly or partly disappeared in the
area, including the kingfisher, night heron, red-legged partridge, red-crested pochard and purple heron.
Birds of prey have also declined dramatically, because rabbits, hares and hedgehogs have already
disappeared.

Woodland has been (unlawfully) cleared, and some forest fires appear not to have ignited spontaneously.
The Ria Formosa Reserve (a good 23 000 hectares) seems unlikely to be given protection by the
authorities, and is being neglected. Unique sand-dune vegetation in marshland areas is dying out owing to
pollution from sewerage effluent
from streams discharging into the lagoons. The polluted water is
increasing the risk of malaria. The Portuguese Office of Statistics (INE) reports that 12 persons died of
malaria in Portugal in 2001 (The News, 14 February 2004).

Does the European Commission agree that this unique nature reserve is being sacrificed to economic
activities that conflict with the special protection intended to apply to Ria Formosa?

the European Commission draw the Portuguese authorities’ attention to the inappropriate

Will
development taking place in and around the Ria Formosa nature reserve area?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

C 84 E/882

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2004)

The question describes the threat posed to the Ria Formosa Nature Reserve by the development of tourism
facilities and golf courses in particular.

The nature reserve forms part of the ‘Ria Formosa/Castro Marim’ site of Community importance proposed
by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), and the ‘Ria Formosa’ special protection area, designated by
Portugal in the framework of Article 4 of Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
wild birds.

Combining Articles 7 and 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC, the Portuguese authorities have a duty to take
appropriate steps to avoid, in special areas of conservation, the deterioration of natural habitats and the
habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which the areas have been designated.
Moreover, under the same provisions, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the
management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination
with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in
view of the site’s conservation objectives.

On several occasions, the Commission has already had reason to contact the Portuguese authorities
following complaints about non-conformity with the abovementioned provisions in the protected areas
mentioned above, particularly as a result of tourism developments identified by the complainants.

The Honourable Member’s written question refers to general reports in the Portuguese press, but does not
identify the projects under way in the abovementioned protected zones.

The Commission would therefore ask the Honourable Member to identify the projects in question so that
it can contact the national authorities and,
if appropriate, consider opening infringement proceedings
against Portugal on the basis of the information provided.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0976)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0807/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Invalidity of a civil aviation pilot’s licence if use is made of it in another Member State or after

revision of the rules governing Air Transport Pilot Licences (ATPL)

1.
Is the Commission aware that in the 1990s an individual could evidently obtain a Dutch theoretical
ATPL via the Opleiding Beroepsvliegers Schiphol flying school, having scored the highest marks for both
theory and practice, but subsequently, because of a lack of openings in the Netherlands, looked for a job as
a pilot in Germany and, since the Dutch licence is largely unrecognised there, was obliged to obtain a
German ATPL at RWL in Mönchengladbach?

2.
Is the Commission aware that individuals with a German licence could also evidently work as a pilot
on all types of Boeing aircraft in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (cid:1) first with Air Berlin (Berlin and
Paderborn) for two years and then for Virgin Express in Belgium for seven years (cid:1) but subsequently be
grounded because, as a result of the introduction of new JAR licences, extensions were no longer issued
every six months at the same time as medical certification?