You are on page 1of 2

8.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/83

sent to the Commission on 30 November 2000. On 21 January 2002 the President of Parliament’s
Petitions Committee responded again to the petitioners, re-stating that the petition had been sent to the
European Commission. After that, no further information has been received.

Can the Commission clarify what is the current position of its investigation?

Why has the Commission not responded to this petition?

Can the Commission confirm that the project is EU funded? If yes, by which means?

Does the Commission consider that EU directives have been infringed?

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


(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The Commission sent an initial communication on Petition 472/2000 on 7 March 2001 and a further
communication has just been prepared following the receipt of new information from the petitioner.

According to the information at hand, the beach regeneration project which is the subject of this written
question is likely to have a significant impact on sites proposed by the Spanish authorities for inclusion in
the Natura 2000 network, due either to sand extraction or to the beach regeneration itself. Incidentally,
these sites contain a priority habitat of Community interest listed in Annex I to Council Directive 92/43/
EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Posidonia beds
 Posidonion oceanicae).

The Commission asked the Spanish authorities for their comments on the situation reported by the
petitioner and on the implementation in this instance of Council Directive 92/43/EEC and 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. It is currently examining the Spanish authorities’ reply and will not fail to
inform the Honourable Member and the Petitions Committee of developments in the dossier.

The Commission has to date received no request for cofinancing of the Almadrava and Les Devesses beach
regeneration project at Denia, either through the Cohesion Fund or through the Structural Funds.

(2003/C 110 E/086) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2662/02


by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Air transport and the environment

The Commission’s communication on ‘Air transport and the environment: towards meeting the challenges
of sustainable development’ (1) stated that further measures on reducing the negative effect of air transport
on the environment would be proposed at a future date. Moreover, my report on behalf of Parliament on
the communication calls on the Commission to bring forward various proposals on air transport and the
environment.
C 110 E/84 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.2003

When does the Commission plan to publish such proposals and will they include measures to reduce:

1. the local impact of air transport on the environment (such as gaseous emissions and noise near
airports); and

2. the global impact of air transport on the environment (such as greenhouse gas emissions)?

(1) COM(1999) 640.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

A number of initiatives relating to air transport and the environment have been launched on the basis of
the Commission communication ‘Air transport and the environment’ (1):

 With regard to the local impact of air transport on the environment, the Commission has published a
proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a
Community framework for noise classification of civil subsonic aircraft for the purposes of calculating
noise charges (2), on which Parliament has given its opinion at first reading.
On 26 March 2002, Parliament and the Council adopted a Directive on the establishment of rules and
procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community
airports (3), on the basis of a Commission proposal (4). This Directive lays down rules to facilitate the
introduction of consistent operating restrictions at airports within the Community.
The Commission has also been following the activities of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) designed to develop a classification system for aircraft that could be used for charging fees in
respect of certain gaseous emissions. When the ECAC has finalised its recommendations, the
Commission will examine whether it is opportune to designate this method as suitable for
introduction at the Community level.

 With regard to the global impact of air transport on the environment, the Commission has had a
study carried out in which several economic instruments have been analysed. This study will be
published very shortly and the Commission will invite interested parties to submit their comments on
its findings. The Commission will take account of Parliament and the Council’s proposals and
reactions to this study.

 Finally, at the international level, the stance taken by the Community and its Member States has led to
emission reductions and the preparation of a new noise standard being placed on the list of priorities
for the 2004 Assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). In this context, the
Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, supports flexible ICAO rules on economic
incentives.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.


(2) COM(2001) 74 final.
(3) Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of
rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports,
OJ L 85, 28.3.2002.
(4) COM(2001) 695 final.

(2003/C 110 E/087) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/02


by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Shop for EU officials in Brussels (2)

In his answer to Question E-1412/02 (1), the Commissioner says that access to the shop is restricted to EU
officials only because of ‘requirements of proof of identity and security’.