WRITTEN QUESTION P-0999/04 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico.
Date: 2004-03-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, electricity supply, electromagnetic interference, environmental impact, heritage protection, impact study, public health, public works

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/267

In accordance with the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is no need for the current Member States
2.
to provide proof of disturbance to their labour market (or a threat thereof) in the case that they wish to
maintain restrictions for the first five years of the transitional period. The Accession Treaty provides only
that for the last two years of the transitional period, that is, after 2009, restrictions on access to the labour
market can only be maintained by a current Member State if there is evidence of serious disturbances or a
threat thereof to the labour market. However, the Accession Treaty also provides that a current Member
State may at any time decide to fully or partially liberalise access to its labour market during the
transitional period. A Member State which has lifted restrictions during this seven year period can invoke a
‘safeguard clause’ and re-impose restrictions if there is evidence of serious disturbances (or a threat thereof)
of the labour market. The Commission expects that most restrictions on access to the labour market could
be lifted by the end of the first five years following accession, that is from 2009 onwards. From 2011
onwards- seven years after accession (cid:1) there will be complete freedom of movement for workers from
new Member States.

(2004/C 88 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0999/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico

The Municipality of Civitella Paganico is allowing the Italian electricity company Terna SpA to continue
with a project to connect the two existing lines of high tension pylons between Speranza-Valmontone and
Suvereto-Montalto. The area in question is the site of a hitherto unexcavated Roman settlement and is,
therefore, currently being evaluated by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Assets and Activities with a view to
its being designated as a cultural heritage site. Despite that evaluation and the fact that the Municipal
Council has already delivered a negative opinion, the project is still going ahead.

Does the Commission consider that the actions of the Municipality of Civitella Paganico are compatible
with the Union’s stated commitment to the protection of public health and of Europe’s cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Projects such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines fall within the scope of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (1) (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/ECof 3 March
1997 (2). It 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. The environmental impact assessment
must identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of a project on human beings, fauna, flora,
soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage.

These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Construction of
overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kilovolts (kV) or more and a length of more than
15 kilometres (km) falls into Annex I whereas transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables below
the above mentioned thresholds is found in Annex II. For projects found in Annex I, an EIA is mandatory,
while for projects found in Annex II, national authorities have to determine, either through a case by case
examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an
assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant
selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

In this specific case, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is
not in a position to take a view on the subject matter. In light of the above, the Honourable Member is
kindly requested to give more information on the matter in order to enable the Commission to assess the
case according to the relevant Community law.

C 88 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

On 12 July 2003, the Council adopted Recommendation 1999/519/EEC (3) limiting the exposure of the
general public to electromagnetic fields in view of ensuring a high level of health protection. The
recommended maximum limits are based on the guidelines established by the International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection and endorsed by the Scientific Steering Committee of
the
Commission. Full adherence to the basic restrictions and reference levels included in the Recommendation
ensures that the public is provided with a high level of protection against both acute and long-term effects
of non-ionising radiation across the whole spectrum. At the same time, the Commission is closely
following and financing research in this area and will react, if necessary, to any new scientific evidence not
yet taken into consideration.

The responsibility for integrating the provisions of the Recommendation mentioned above into national
law lies with Member States. The issue should therefore be taken up with the relevant national authorities.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 199, 30.7.1999.

(2004/C 88 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) and Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: OIE conference on vaccination against animal diseases

(1 April 2004)

From 13 to 16 April 2004 the OIE will organise an international conference in Buenos Aires on
vaccination against animal diseases.

1. Will the European Commission base its contribution to this conference on the report and resolution
of the European Parliament’s temporary committee on foot-and-mouth disease? If not, what will
its
contribution be?

2.
Is the European Commission, together with the EU Member States, prepared to enforce, within the
framework of the OIE, a policy that does not differentiate between protective emergency vaccination
(whereby the vaccinated animals are kept alive) on the one hand and suppressive emergency vaccination
and / or preventive culling on the other?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Members of
its participation in and contribution to the
International Conference on the Control of Animal Infectious Diseases by Vaccination, held in Buenos
Aires on 13 to 16 April 2004.

At the request of the organising committee, the Commission representative is delivering a paper on: ‘The
use of antigen and vaccine banks in case of emergency vaccination in the European Community’ and was
invited to chair the Section on ‘Antigen and vaccine banks as a safety measure for insuring control of
disease spread’.

The paper is focused on the integration of emergency vaccination in the complex of measures to be
implemented in the case of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). It refers to the needs for
contingency planning and explains the Community antigen bank within this context. One of
the
conclusions should be to raise awareness in countries practicing vaccination that highly purified vaccines
and sufficiently sensitive and specific tests for the detection of antibodies against non-structural proteins
are essential prerequisites to substantiate any claim for absence of virus circulation following the use of
vaccination. In addition, surveillance conducted for that purpose should at least meet the requirements of
the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) and should include a thorough follow-up of and decisive
actions in relation to herds which had been in contact with the virus.