You are on page 1of 2

26.1.

2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/35

In its answer to Written Questions P-1537/99 and E-1561/99, (1) the Commission has already provided the
Honourable Member with a breakdown, by Member State, of vessels used in 1995-97 and those authorised
for 1998-1999.

As already stated in its answer to Written Question E-2484/99 from Mr Ortuondo Larrea (2), the
Commission cannot publish the named vessel list because Article 37 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
policy (3) requires data received under that Regulation to be treated in a confidential manner. Each
Member State’s supervisory authorities have the information needed to ensure compliance with Regulation
(EC) No 1239/98.

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 34.
(2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 145.
(3) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2001/C 26 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0384/00
by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: The environmental situation in the Moncayo nature park

The area of the Moncayo nature park in the autonomous community of Aragon which falls within the
province of Soria is starting to resemble an ‘electricity park’. As a result of the negligent actions of the
authorities, it now contains six wind farms, 31 km of power lines and miles of 220 kw power lines with
substations.

The environmental interest of the area is recognised at Community level through the LIFE programme for
the protection of the bearded vultures which populate the Sorian area.

No notice was given of the environmental impact assessment in the Official Gazette of Castille and León of
9 July 1998, and the government of Castille and León drastically and unilaterally altered the environmental
impact statement (1) without consulting or informing the interested parties. This has resulted in the current
situation whereby, with no official change of use being made, the said power lines have been sited in the
Cañada Real del Moncayo (a livestock trail running through the park), thereby seriously jeopardising the
viability of the LIFE programme in the area. These irregularities have been the subject of more than 1500
complaints, and an administrative appeal is pending.

Could the Commission confirm whether the Spanish Government has correctly transposed Directive 85/
337/EEC (2), most recently amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (3), on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment?

Is it the case that where changes are made to an environmental impact statement that has already been
approved, full compliance with the directive requires a new procedure to be started from the point at
which the changes were made?

Does the LIFE programme for the protection of bearded vultures in the area of Moncayo which is part of
Aragon make any provision for protection of these birds in neighbouring areas which are part of other
autonomous communities?

Is there any measure that would oblige the companies concerned to undo the unnecessary alterations made
to the area pending resolution of the administrative appeals currently under way?

(1) Statement published in the Official Gazette of Castille and León (B.O.C. y L) of 6 November 1998.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
C 26 E/36 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

With regard to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment, it should be noted that the Commission initiated
infringement proceedings against Spain for incorrect transposition of this Directive into Spanish law. It
has now taken the matter to the Court of Justice (1).

Article 3 of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC provides that
Member States must comply with the Directive by 14 March 1999 at the latest. It should be noted that the
Commission automatically takes action whenever a Member State fails to communicate national imple-
menting measures by the given deadline, as provided for in Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty.
A reasoned opinion has just been sent to Spain regarding Directive 97/11/EC.

The project to which the Honourable Member refers concerns industrial installations for the production of
electricity or installations for the transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables. This type of project
is listed in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC. Under the terms of Article 4(2) projects of the classes listed
in Annex II must be made subject to an assessment where Member States consider that their characteristics
so require. In this case an environmental impact assessment appears to have been carried out. On the sole
basis of the information communicated by the Honourable Member the Commission cannot determine
whether the changes made to the project should be made subject to an impact assessment.

The bearded vulture is one of the species protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC (2) of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. One LIFE project is specifically concerned
with the protection of bearded vultures in the Moncayo area in the Autonomous Community of Aragon.
The reintroduction of the species to this area will be very important for its reintroduction to other
mountainous regions of Spain.

The Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, will take the necessary measures to ensure that Community
law is complied with in the case in question.

(1) Case C-474/99.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 26 E/049) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0388/00
by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: Genetic tests on immigrants in Switzerland

On Sunday the Mise au Point programme broadcast by the Swiss French-language television channel TSR
broke the news about a draft law which is already in the hands of the Federal Councillor Ruth Metzler.

According to the programme, would-be immigrants wishing to enter the country in order to join other
members of their family will in future (if the law is adopted) be required to undergo genetic tests in order
to establish kinship.

In view of the fact that an Agreement exists between the European Union and Switzerland:

1. What is the European Union intending to do about disturbing evidence of a xenophobic attitude
towards foreigners which, in this particular case, brings Nazi practices to mind?

2. What will the Commission do in the light of the fact that many foreign nationals live in Switzerland,
including nationals from a number of EU Member States?