| Avis juridique important | The document is not available in one of the selected languages. Please choose another one from the drop-down list. |
| | |
| | | |
| 92000E1657 | |
| WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Priority of international law over an EU directive and national environmental laws. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| Official Journal 113 E , 18/04/2001 P. 0036 - 0037 | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| WRITTEN QUESTION E-1657/00 | |
| by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission | |
| (29 May 2000) | |
| Subject: Priority of international law over an EU directive and national environmental laws | |
| The Commission states that a study on the environmental impact of the Iron Rhine is needed since the Dutch section of the route passes through areas which are environmentally sensitive and are covered by the provisions of Council Directive 92/43/EEC(1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora (E-0525/00)(2). | |
| With this answer the Commission implies that the international treaties on the Iron Rhine to which Question E-2381/99(3) refers are subordinate to the Habitats Directive and to Dutch environmental laws. However, the Treaty of Vienna clearly states that international law takes precedence over national law. Moreover, one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty is Russia, which is not a Member State. | |
| In its answer to Question E-2381/99 the Commission took the view that the question about the order of importance of international treaties and national legislation is not relevant in this case, since the application of the Community law will not necessarily obstruct the application of the treaties. In view of its position in E-0525/00, legal clarity must be created as soon as possible on whether or not the Habitats Directive and Netherlands environmental laws are subordinate to the international treaties referred to in E-2381/99. | |
| Are the Habitats Directive and the Netherlands environmental laws derived from it subordinate to the international treaties referred to in E-2381/99, in view of the fact that (a) one of the contracting parties to the Belgium-Netherlands Arbitration Treaty is the non-member State Russia, and (b) the Treaty of Vienna expressly states that international law takes precedence over national law? If not, what are the Commission's grounds for arguing that the Habitats Directive and Netherlands environmental laws take precedence over international law? | |
| (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7. | |
| (2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 58. | |
| (3) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35. | |
| Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission | |
| (20 July 2000) | |
| In reply to Written question E-2381/99 from Mr Staes(1) the Commission has already stated that it is not for it to judge the effects of the Treaties to which the Honourable Member refers. It also said that it is for the Member States concerned to assess and determine the future use of the Iron Rhine railway line. | |
| The Commission has to ensure that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied. If the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty it may take measures pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) thereof. The Commission does not have such a role concerning other treaties to which Member States are party. | |
| As a result of Written question P-1875/99 from Mr de Roo(2) the Commission has asked the Netherlands for information about the application, with respect to the re-opening of the Iron Rhine, of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(3) and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna(4). The Netherlands has not yet replied. | |
| Should the Netherlands' answer reveal any grounds of non-compliance with Community law, the Commission will not hesitate to take all necessary measures to ensure the full respect of Community law. | |
| (1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 35. | |
| (2) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000, p. 113. | |
| (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. | |
| (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. | |
