WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council. EU project Natura 2000 ‐ Repercussions on the situation of individuals under private law.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/53 being located 50 kilometres from Milan. The Italian authorities have said that the other airlines operating at Malpensa are free to take the same commercial step and enter into a similar arrangement with Malpensa Express. The Commission is unable, on the basis of the information currently available to it, to determine whether the contract includes elements of State aid favouring one or other of the parties. (2000/C 219 E/062) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1961/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council (9 November 1999) Subject: General amnesty in Italy ü Compatibility with the Schengen Agreement Whenever it is unable to cope with the persistent infringement of its laws, it is the Italian Governmentís habit to have recourse the ácondonoí or amnesty. This happened again at the beginning of this year when it used this device to legalise some quarter of a million illegal immigrants. The fact that the Italian State is clearly unable to police its borders efficiently does however inevitably affect the other Member States of the EU and the Schengen Agreement. 1. 2. 3. 4. Is the Council aware of this practice? Is this course of action by Italy compatible with the Schengen Agreement? If so, on what grounds is it compatible? If not, what action does the Council intend to take, or what action has it already undertaken? Reply (31 January 2000) In the context of the exchange of information on migration policy taking place routinely within the Council, Member States that have introduced programmes to regularise the situation of illegal migrants, or plan to introduce such programmes in the near future, have informed the Council thereof. The measures to strengthen the effectiveness of controls by Member States of external borders developed in the Schengen framework (which, following the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, have been integrated in the framework of European Union) are without prejudice to the Member Statesí right to determine the conditions for allowing third-country nationals who have entered or are staying on their territory without the required documentation and who have been staying there for a fairly long period of time, to continue to do so. (2000/C 219 E/063) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/99 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council (9 November 1999) Subject: EU project Natura 2000í ü Repercussions on the situation of individuals under private law The Federal State of Lower Austria has registered 31. 63 % of its total surface area under the EU project Natura 2000í. Under this project, the Member States are obliged to ensure compliance with the directive on the preservation of bird life and the áflora-fauna-habitat directiveí in the designated areas. In drawing up the corresponding lists of designated areas, most landowners were neither asked nor informed even though this entails major restrictions on property rights and use. C 219 E/54 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 In view of this, can the Council answer the following questions: 1. What department or agency in the EU is responsible for the implementation of this project? 2. Which areas have been registered for the Natura 2000í project in the various Austrian federal states and in Lower Austria in particular? 3. What are the consequences for landowners? Can the Council provide detailed information in this regard? 4. What legal provisions are there for owners of land in Natura 2000í registered areas to opt out of the project? 5. Can a local authority which has registered under the Natura 2000í project withdraw such a registration? 6. What are the consequences for landowners in such cases? 7. Were the Natura 2000í project and the associated problems relating to financing and compensation discussed in the Council of Ministers? 8. Are the actions of the Federal State of Lower Austria in registering certain areas under the Natura 2000í project without the prior consent of landowners compatible with current EU law? 9. If not, what does the Council intend to do about these illegal actions? To what extent are landowners, who are affected by the actions of their Federal State of Lower Austria which are incompatible with EU law, obliged to comply with the provisions restricting property rights contained in the above- mentioned directives? 10. If so, is the Council of the opinion that these actions are at least questionable in the light of the provisions of the ECHR (restrictions on the rights of property owners, independence of authorities interfering with the rights of individuals under private law)? Reply (31 January 2000) The Commission is responsible for supervising and monitoring the implementation of Directive 92/43/EEC on habitats, under which Natura 2000 falls. Consequently, all the information relating to the project of the Federal State of Lower Austria referred to by the Honourable Member should be forwarded to the Commission. It should be noted that under Article 3(2) of Directive 92/43 it is for the Member States to submit proposals for sites to the Commission, in accordance with their respective constitutional and administrative procedures. While the Directive specifies the different stages of the Community procedure, the relevant criteria for the actual designation of a site and the details of financial assistance (Article 8), it is not intended that it should interfere with any internal procedures which an individual Member State may have to follow in order to propose a site, in particular as regards consulting the parties concerned. (2000/C 219 E/064) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1970/99 by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission (19 October 1999) Subject: VAT refunds in Italy This question is based on an actual case. A Danish company supplied fertiliser and watering systems to a greenhouse operator in Sardinia in 1994 and the work was completed in early 1995. The assembly work was carried out by an Italian company which then invoiced the Danish company with 19 % VAT. The Danish company then, as normal, sent the invoices to the Danish exporters association which then, via an Italian VAT consultants, Pichler & Co, was to ensure that the Danish company received its VAT refund