WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2268/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ to the Commission. Hunting of migratory birds in France
C 142/10 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 5. 1999 (1999/C 142/011) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2268/98 by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) to the Commission Subject: Hunting of migratory birds in France (22 July 1998) The French National Assembly recently decided to extend the hunting season for migratory birds. In doing so, it is knowingly flouting European rules and it is presenting its blatant disregard for the rules in force as proof that France can act independently with regard to European rules. Has the Commission already responded to this disregard for European rules and, if so, how? Or is it 1. planning to do so and, if so, how and when? 2. In its opinion, if action is taken before the European Court of Justice which could result in penalty payments being imposed on France, what chances of success does such action have, how long would the proceedings take and how long would it take for such penalties to be paid? Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission (21 September 1998) The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Oral Question H-726/98 by 1. Mr Elliott (1). Articles 169 and 171 of the EC Treaty deal with the procedure concerning States which fail to fulfil 2. their obligations. The Court of Justice can only impose the penalty payments stipulated by Article 171 in its second judgment, in which it recognises that a Member State has failed to comply with its first judgment. If, following the reasoned opinion mentioned in the preceding point, and having examined the French reply, the Commission decided to bring the matter before the Court of Justice, it would fall to the latter to give a ruling in its own time. This tends to take between one and two years. If the Court were to find that France had failed to fulfil its obligations in respect of the hunting season for wild birds, and if France failed to comply with that judgment, the Commission could institute proceedings on the basis of Article 171 of the EC Treaty. Like the Article 169 procedure, this involves a preliminary phase (formal notice, reasoned opinion) and a litigation phase before the Court of Justice. Experience shows that, from start to finish, this can take several years. (1) Debates of the European Parliament (September 1998). (1999/C 142/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2282/98 by Raimo Ilaskivi (PPE) to the Commission (22 July 1998) Subject: Hunting of bears and the habitats directive A bear recently killed a man who was out walking on land close to an inhabited area in Finland. Bears have started to approach human settlements more frequently, giving rise to discussions on how safely people can walk in the countryside and in thinly-populated areas. At the same time, however, the Commission has urged Finland, referring to the nature protection provisions of the habitats directive, to reduce the number of hunting licences. This has led to a lively discussion in the media. The Commission is effectively placing a higher value on a bear’s life than on a human being’s. In the light of the above, what does the Commission propose to do to ensure a more sensible interpretation of the habitats directive and permit people to hunt bears which prove dangerous? If the Commission’s inflexible line on this issue does not change, it will have to be held responsible for the loss of human lives