WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Widening of the approach road to Gardaland, Castelnuovo del Garda (Verona).
C 303 E/160 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 (2000/C 303 E/177) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0198/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (27 January 2000) Subject: Widening of the approach road to Gardaland, Castelnuovo del Garda (Verona) By Decision 153 of 28 July 1999, the municipality of Castelnuovo sul Garda (Verona) approved the final plans for the widening to four lanes (plus a cycle path and pedestrian walkway) of the approximately 1,4 km stretch of the Via Dernaí link road (between the Statale 249 (Gardesana Orientale) and the Provinciale 30 (Per Colà) roads) (1) which comes within its boundaries. The justification given for the project is the need to improve the road access to the Gardaland spa amusement park, the operators of which will bear the cost of the work. The eventual aim is to extend the link road as far as the A4 motorway (Milan-Venice), via the Statale 450 (Superstrada Napoleonica) (2) road. However, no commitment has been made by the municipality of Lazise, the ANAS (highways authority) or the Società Autostrade spa (motorway operating company) to taking action within their respective powers to carry out the necessary ancillary work and upgrade the links with the relevant roads (the Provinciale 30 and the Statale 450) and the A4 motorway (Milan-Venice), which would require the installation of new toll booths. This places a major question mark over the projectís usefulness and shows that the initiative taken by the municipality of Castelnuovo is an attempt to force the hand of the other public bodies concerned. Opposition to the project has already emerged and private actions have been brought before the Regional Administrative Court (3). The project has not been subjected to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and no attempt has been made to ascertain whether such an assessment is necessary. The Italian law (4) transposing Directive 85/ 337/EEC (5) stipulates that all rural secondary roads and urban through roads with four or more lanes which are over 1,5 km long and which run at least partly through protected areas must be subjected to an EIA. In the case of roads that do no run through protected areas, the characteristics of the project must be examined to ascertain whether an EIA is required. Part of the Via Derna runs through an area subject to landscaping constraints and the project to widen the road runs contrary to the environmental guidelines for the drafting of land-use plans in the Lake Garda area which are laid down in the Regional Development Master Plan for the Veneto region (6). The Court of Justice recently gave a restrictive interpretation of the application of EIAs (7). Would the Commission not agree that the above project should be subjected to a prior environmental examination in order to determine whether an EIA is necessary? If it does, how does it intend to ensure that such an examination is carried out? (1) The Via Derna was built in 1997 with EAGGF funding, as an agricultural development measure (Ministerial Decree 16772 of 25 October 1974, pursuant to Article 35 of Law 910 of 27 October 1966). (2) Once completed, the Gardaland-A4 motorway link would have an overall length of approximately 5,8 km. (3) Veneto Regional Administrative Court cases 3027/99 (Gianfranco Frezza), 3028/99 (Andreino and Claudio Lorenzini) and 3029/99 (Renzo Lorenzini). (4) Presidential Decree of 12 April 1996, published in the Official Journal of 7 September 1996. (5) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40. (6) In this connection, Veneto Regional Law No 10 of 26 March 1999 on EIAs, published in the Regional Official Journal of 30 March 1999, requires an EIA to be conducted on all urban through roads with four or more lanes which are longer than 1,950 km and rural secondary roads longer than 5 km which run at least partly through sensitive areas. It makes no provision for rural secondary roads less than 5 km long which run through sensitive areas. (7) The Court found that, in respect of projects coming under Annex II to the EIA directives, Member States may not exclude from an EIA procedure or take outside the assessment obligation projects which by virtue of their nature, size or location could have significant environmental effects (judgment of 16 September 1999 in Case C-435/97) and that a prior environmental examination must in any case be carried out in order to ascertain whether an EIA is necessary (judgment of 2 May 1996 in Case C-133/94). Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (23 February 2000) The project mentioned by the Honourable Member is a four lane road of 1 400 metres. It is to be considered as covered by the class 10e) Construction of roads, harbours and port installations, including fishing harbours (projects not included in Annex I) of Annex II of Council Directive 97/11/EC of 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/161 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1). The Directive, provides that (Article 4, paragraph 2): Subject to Article 2(3), for projects listed in Annex II, the Member States shall determine through: (a) a case-by-case examination, or (b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State whether the project shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10. Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in (a) and (b). Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of Community law. (1) OJ L 73, 14. 3. 1997. (2000/C 303 E/178) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0206/00 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (4 February 2000) Subject: Live transport of farm animals What action does the Commission intend to take in response to the November report by the Food and Veterinary Office which: ü highlighted serious shortcomings at Italian border inspection posts regarding the enforcement of EU rules for journey times, resting periods, watering and feeding of animals, ü recommended that the Italian authorities take immediate action to ensure that animals, who may have undergone long journeys from distant places of departure in third countries, are rested for 24 hours, where applicable, and ü recommended that the Italian authorities should respond within 10 working days to the findings of the report, giving details of actions taken and planned to address the problems? Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (21 March 2000) The Commission is aware from reports by its veterinary inspectorate and the response from the Italian authorities as well as complaints from various animal welfare organizations, of the problems in relation to the insufficient enforcement of Council Directive 91/628/EC on the protection of animals during transport (1) as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC concerning the protection of animals during transport arriving at some Italian border inspection posts (BIPS). When animals arrive at the frontier of the Community in a condition where they are clearly not fit for further transport, the Member State concerned is obliged to take the necessary action to protect the welfare of the animals involved by giving them proper care and attention with a sufficient resting period. Five veterinary inspection missions have been carried out at the Italian border inspection posts of Gorizia and Prosecco-Fernetti in the last five years. Following the most recent mission in July 1999, the Italian authorities have responded to the recommendations concerning animal welfare and have given assurances that steps would be taken to ensure the 24 hour availability of veterinary personnel and that specific instructions would be issued to staff to ensure compliance with animal welfare legislation. A further mission is foreseen to Italian BIPS, including Gorizia and Prosecco for the second half of this year. The Commission is reviewing the matter and will not hesitate to open infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty should this prove necessary