WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/04 by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Lobau motorway.
Date: 2004-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, impact study, motorway, protected area, road building

C 88 E/270

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission is of the view that Member States have to ensure that the results of an environmental
impact assessment concerning projects covered by 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) as amended by
Council Directive 97/11/EEC of 3 March 1997 (EIA Directive), are taken into account in the development
consent procedure as is clearly stipulated in Article 8 of the aforementioned Directive.

As regards the specific motorway project mentioned in the petition (S1,
the
Commission recently closed a complaint file concerning the same road project on the undertaking of the
Austrian authorities that the requirements of the EIA Directive will be taken fully into account in the
current development consent procedure.

the former B301),

The Commission will follow up the question of a potential non-conform transposition of the EIA Directive
regarding road projects in Austria in the appropriate way.

the opinion that

the Commission is of

the said decrees granting consent

for motorways
Finally,
(‘Trassenverordnungen’) cannot be considered as specific acts of national legislation within the meaning of
Article 1(5) of the EIA Directive. Such decrees appear neither to cover all details of a particular road
project (additional permits are normally required to authorise a road project in Austria) nor are they
actually acts of legislation (they are issued by authorities, not by way of a law adopted by Parliament).
However, the EIA Directive does not stipulate that a single development consent procedure is required
(Article 2a). Member States are free to integrate the environmental impact assessment procedure into any
existing procedure or other appropriate procedure according to Article 2(2) of
the EIA Directive.
Therefore, the integration of the environmental impact assessment procedure for a road project into the
‘Trassenverordnung’ cannot be regarded per se as infringement of the EIA Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2004/C 88 E/0275)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1010/04

by Johannes Voggenhuber (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 April 2004)

Subject: Lobau motorway

The Republic of Austria intends to build a motorway in the Lobau national park, which it notified to the
Commission as a designated bird conservation area under Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and as a protected FFH
area under Directive 92/43/EC (2).

The planned motorway will cut into the edge of the conservation area and run under it through a tunnel.
It would, however, be technically possible to choose another route which does not affect the Lobau
conservation area.

There are also plans to develop a four to six-lane road (plus two hard shoulders) in the immediate vicinity
of the Lobau conservation area, running in the direction of the motorway.

Is it permissible under Community law to reduce the Lobau Natura 2000 area for a motorway

1.
project?

2.

Is it permissible to run a motorway underneath a Natura 2000 conservation area?

3. Must an environmental
expansion of the road near the conservation area pursuant to Article 6 of the FFH Directive?

impact assessment also be carried out in respect of the four to six-lane

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/271

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The site ‘Nationalpark Donau-Auen (Wiener Teil)’ (AT1301000) was designated by Austria as a special
protection area (SPA) under the Birds Directive (1) and proposed as a site of community interest (SCI) under
the Habitats Directive (2). It has a size of 2 258 hectares (ha). Neighbouring that site, the site ‘Donau-Auen
östlich von Wien’ in Lower Austria was designated as SPA (AT1204V00) with a size of 9 172 ha and
proposed as an SCI (AT1204000) with a size of 9 579 ha. Both types of sites, SPAs and SCIs, make up the
Natura 2000 network.

Referring to the specific questions of the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to answer as
follows:

(cid:1) It is not permissible under Community law to reduce the surface of a Natura 2000 site in order to
carry out an infrastructure project. The obligations of a Member State under the respective EU-nature
legislation cannot be avoided that way. The delimitation of Natura 2000 sites needs to be done on a
purely scientific basis, based on the occurrences and needs of species and habitats of Community
interest.

(cid:1) The compatibility of a motorway development with the requirement of EU nature legislation needs to
be judged on a case by case basis. Wherever a proposed plan or project is likely to affect a Natura
2000 site, the project must be subject to an assessement in accordance with the provisions of Article 6
of the Habitats Directive. 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 concerned hosts a priority
natural habitat type and/or a priority species, the only considerations which may be raised are those
relating to human health or public safety, to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the
environment, or,
to other imperative reasons of
overriding public interest.

further to an opinion from the Commission,

(cid:1) An assessment according to Article 6 of the Habitats Directive needs to be done whenever a plan or
project is likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. If this is the case, it is of no
relevance where this plan or project is located. It might be inside or outside the Natura 2000 site.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds as modified by Commission

Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.

(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

(2004/C 88 E/0276)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1015/04

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

(5 April 2004)

Svalbard shrimp fishing by the Community fleet is seriously impeded by the obligation that no more than
four EU fishing fleet units be present at any one time. This practice has been imposed for some years, and
there is thus a danger that it will become established, with all the negative consequences it presupposes for
the Community fleet, which is unable to take up the full fishing effort allocated to it yearly (519 days).
Furthermore, this limitation is imposed in the brief months in which access can be had to the region, due
to the adverse weather conditions which prevail there for most of the year. The Commission’s reply of
8 May 2002 to my previous Written Question E-1037/02 (1) stated that it was fully aware of the problems
which the situation of the Svalbard shrimp fishery posed for the Member States concerned. In its reply to
my question E-3581/03 (2), it stated that ‘The question of improved access conditions for the Community
shrimp fleet fishing in the Svalbard area has been discussed with Norway on several occasions and most
recently at a high level meeting in March 2003,’ and continued ‘Norway is not willing to consider an
increase in fishing days but has indicated that they could consider an increase in the number of vessels
allowed in the area at the same time. However, they link such an increase in the number of vessels with,