WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/04 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee.
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, competence of the Member States, drilling, energy policy, energy supply, environmental impact, environmental protection, exploitation of the sea-bed, impact study, protected area

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/947

implementation of the programmes. This will be taken into account in the preparation of the new
programme for Community action for the audiovisual industry.

The contributions for festivals are relatively small in order to reach the largest number of beneficiaries
the
possible and the largest audience for European works. The Commission does not accept
application costs would be EUR 4 000 to receive EUR 10 000 or 40 % of the subsidy received, as the
Honourable Member states in his question.

that

It should be noted that a minimum of 40 % of the cost of a project should be funded by sources other
the
than Community support. The co-financing clause does not have any impact on the costs of
application, but
is a requirement established by the financial regulations in the implementation of
Community programmes.

(2004/C 84 E/1046)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1108/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Drilling for gas in the Waddenzee

On 15 March 2004, the newspaper NRC Handelsblad reported that the Advisory Group on Policy on the
Waddenzee had advised the Netherlands Government to permit the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural
gas from the Waddenzee because there were no ecological grounds for a fresh moratorium on extraction.
If any subsidence were to occur as a result, the Advisory Group argues, the drilling could be halted. In the
answer to my question to the Commission in 1999 (P-2297/99 (1)) the Commission stressed that naturally
the precautionary principle applied. In case of doubt, nothing should be done unless a reason existed based
on the overriding public interest. If it could be demonstrated that the extraction would have a significant
adverse impact, compensatory measures should be taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura
2000 was protected. The Commission also mentioned that the term ‘significant effect’ in Article 6 of the
Habitats Directive had a broader meaning than ‘irreversible effect’.

Does the Commission agree that there is a genuine risk of subsidence and that the precautionary

1.
principle must apply?

In relation to the anticipated subsidence, is it possible to take compensatory measures in advance? Is
2.
interference with the sand and sediment deposits an acceptable disruption of the natural environment in
the Waddenzee?

In the interests of nature conservation, the Waddenzee ought to be left in peace as a unique natural
3.
area. In the light of the Green Paper on the security of energy supply, the EU’s growing dependence on gas
imports (up to 70 % in 20 or 30 years’ time) and rising gas prices, can the Commission confirm or deny
that in fact there is an overriding public interest in postponing the extraction of 40 billion m3 of natural
gas for at least 20 years and reassessing in 2025 whether gas extraction in the Waddenzee is in the public
interest?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 91.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1.
The Wadden Sea is an area that has to be protected as a special protection area in the sense of
Council Directive 79/409/EECof 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) and as a special area of
conservation in the sense of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2).

C 84 E/948

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Commission is aware of a number of studies indicating that natural gas extraction from sub-surface
layers in the Wadden Sea may have direct and indirect negative effects on the Wadden Sea ecosystem, such
as a subsidence of the soil, a decreasing area of tidal mud flats and tidal marshes, changes in the
sedimentation regime, noise, visual disturbance and pollution risk. It is the responsibility of the competent
Dutch authorities to evaluate if the impact of the exploitation of another 40 billion cubic metres (m3) of
natural gas on the Wadden Sea is likely to be significant or not. Should it appear that significant negative
effects are likely to occur, then an appropriate assessment according to Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC
must be made. The competent national authorities may agree to the further exploitation of natural gas in
the Wadden Sea only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site
concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public. The Commission is
of the opinion that in this context the precautionary principle has to be taken into account. The provisions
of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC apply in the case of a negative assessment of
the project’s
implications for the site.

Compensatory measures are intended to compensate for the effects on a habitat affected negatively
2.
by a project. The design and feasibility of any compensatory measures for a given project can be
considered only after having precisely ascertained the negative impact of that project on a site. Changes in
the sedimentation regime in the Wadden Sea are among the potential effects of gas exploitation in that
area. It is the responsibility of the competent Dutch authorities to evaluate if any expected changes are
likely to have a significant effect on the Wadden Sea ecosystem and if so, to make sure that the relevant
provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) are applied.

It is a matter of subsidiarity and therefore completely left to Member States whether the gas demand
3.
in a certain Member State will be met by indigenous production or by imported gas. However, Member
States are obliged to ensure compliance of their respective policies with Community rules currently in
force, such as Directive 92/43/EEC.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979 as amended by Commission Directive 91/244/EEC of 6 March 1991, OJ L 115, 8.5.1991.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/1047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1109/04

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Restriction on allowances in connection with foreign income

Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law (EStG), in the version published in the
Austrian Federal Gazette (BGBl 818/1993), lays down that where, with regard to an assessment for the
calculation of tax, an average tax rate is applicable, that average rate is to be calculated after account has
been taken of the allowances granted pursuant to paragraphs 3 to 7 (except for child allowances granted
pursuant to paragraph 4, third line, subparagraph (a)). Those allowances may not be deducted a second
time when the average tax rate is applied. That provision guarantees that a taxpayer with an income in his
country of origin will receive the full allowances, while a taxpayer with foreign income is entitled solely to
allowances granted on a pro rate basis.

According to case-law of the Austrian Administrative Court with regard to the legal situation before the
publication of BGBl 818/1993, the allowances were not to be taken into account before the calculation of
the average tax rate but only in connection with the tax payable after application of the average tax rate to
the income subject to national tax. According to the judgment handed down by the European Court of
Justice on 12 December 2002 in Case C-385/00 (F.W.L. de Groot), the allowances granted in Austria, the
State of residence, must be admitted as deductible if no guarantee can be given that the amounts will be
deductible in the source State.

What measures is the Commission thinking of taking if the method of calculating the average tax rate,
including the application of a progressivity clause and the maximum assessment amount laid down in
Section 33, paragraph 10, of the 1988 Austrian Income Tax Law, proves to infringe Article 39 of the EC
Treaty?