WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/00 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Trans-European networks.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/191 The Commission would like to point out that for the European Economic Area (EEA), Directive 96/100/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 February 1997 amending the Annex to Directive 93/7/EEC on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State (1) lays down arrangements and a procedure, to be applied among the States which are party to the EEA Agreement, for the return of cultural objects which have been unlawfully removed from the territory of one of these States. This Directive is an accompanying measure to the process of completing the internal market, as its purpose is to supplement border controls in providing the means of affording suitable protection to cultural objects. Community regulations have been taken into account by the Unidroit Convention, Article 13 of which stipulates that áin their relations with each other, Contracting States which are members of organisations of economic integration or regional bodies may declare that they will apply the internal rules of these organisations or bodies and will not therefore apply as between these States the provisions of this Convention the scope of application of which coincides with that of those rulesí. A declaration of this type has been made by two of the five Member States which have signed the Convention: the Netherlands, which did so upon signing the Convention, and Finland, which has already ratified the Convention, when its deposited its instrument of ratification. The other Member States which have signed the Convention to date are France, Portugal and Italy. Italy has already deposited its instrument of ratification and thus become party to the Convention. (1) OJ L 60, 1. 3. 1997. (2000/C 374 E/224) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0950/00 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Trans-European networks The European Council meeting in Essen in 1994 adopted a number of priority TEN projects. One of those fourteen projects was the development of the Nordic triangleí, an important project for infrastructure in the Nordic region. In its progress report on these TEN projects, the Commission notes that Sweden is not fulfilling its commitments, which is affecting the necessary expansion of capacity on the E6 and E4, not to mention the Malmö-Trelleborg stretch of the E6, which is so important for the countryís imports and exports. What does the Commission intend to do in response to Swedenís failure to act and the delay in complying with these commitments which are such important infrastructure projects for Sweden and for Europe? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (28 April 2000) In 1998 and 1999 the Commission published two follow-up reports (1) concerning the progress and status of the 14 specific projects identified at the Essen European Council in December 1994. In both reports it is stated that three projects are near completion, six others will be finalised around 2005 and five will be finalised significantly beyond 2005. The project called the Nordic Triangle, which contains the sections of the E4 and E6 mentioned by the Honourable Member, is among the five projects in the last group. The special nature of the Nordic Triangle, which is a multi-modal corridor with a large number of sub-projects, makes it very difficult to establish a firm overall timetable and financing plan. Negotiations on this issue are taking place between the Commission and the Finnish and Swedish authorities. The implementation of transport infrastructure projects falls primarily under the responsibility of the Member States and the regional and local bodies following the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission cannot therefore require the Member States to implement any particular infrastructure project. However, the Commission can encourage the Member States to implement a project by offering financial support or C 374 E/192 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 by helping to establish alternative financial solutions like public-private partnerships. The Commission has previously supported upgrading and construction on several sections of the E6 and E18 within the Nordic Triangle. (1) Report on progress and implementation of the 14 Essen projectsí (COM(98) 356 final) and 1998 Annual report on the Trans-European Networksí (COM(99) 410 final). (2000/C 374 E/225) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0952/00 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (22 March 2000) Subject: Schloen shooting range Reports from the local citizensí action group and the Bündnis 90/Grünen group in the district (Kreis) of Mütitz indicate that the Land government has so far failed to take effective action to halt the Schloen shooting range project (24 stands). According to a study carried out by the University of Greifswald for the municipality of Schloen and in the opinion of the Vice-President of the Nature Conservation Federation (NABU), Professor Succow, the area concerned is the habitat of an extremely wide range of species, including priority species, which means that its designation as an FFH or EU bird conservation area would be justified. This has also been put to the Land government through the Association for Nature and Environmental Protection Germany (BUND). Is the Commission aware that the notified FFH protected area designations by Mecklenburg-Western 1. Pomerania have thus been incomplete? 2. Does the Commission agree that this designation as a protected area within the meaning of the EC bird protection directive needs to be undertaken and notification as an FFH area given without delay? Is the Commission aware that, although the appropriate ministry knows of the adverse consequences 3. (including the abandonment of a sea eagleís nest, a breeding ground for cranes and a colony of corncrakes and the sustained disturbance of movements of migratory birds between the Mütitz National Park and the Torgelower/Varchentin Lakes area), it is not giving the municipality of Schloen enough support in preventing the construction of the shooting range? Is the Commission aware that a number of other, ecologically safe sites for the project have been 4. proposed to the shooting club, but have always been rejected? Is the Commission aware that the authorising agency has made serious errors in the authorising 5. procedure and that these have not yet been duly corrected? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (27 April 2000) The Commission considers that there is a lack of sufficient Natura 2000 sites under Council Directive 92/ 43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) not only in Mecklenburg ü Vorpommern, but also more generally in Germany. As a result the Commission brought the matter before the Court of justice already one year ago and it awaits the judgement. Likewise, there is a legal action against Germany for its failure to classify sufficient areas under Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (2). The Commission has decided to bring this matter too before the Court of justice. The Commission does not have the necessary information to establish if the area at Schloen qualifies for inclusion in Natura 2000. Nor is it able to answer the specific questions concerning this project in or close to Schloen, when no detailed information is presented. If there is evidence to show that there is an infringement of European law the Honourable Member is invited to provide more detailed information pursuant to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC or Directive 79/409/EEC. That would include an evaluation of the importance of the site for different species and habitats of Community interest in accordance with the requirements of the directives. As regards the