14.2.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 40 E/137 (2002/C 40 E/146) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1907/01 by Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (28 June 2001) Subject: Action to protect Lake Pergusa (Sicily), an area of Community interest Lake Pergusa (Enna) is a wetland included on the list of ITA060002 special protection areas (SPAs) selected by the Italian Government. The lake is also a nature reserve, which was set up under Regional Law (LR) 71/95 No 8220 in order to protect the basin together with its flora and fauna. The Province of Enna, which manages the nature reserve on behalf of the Region of Sicily, but which is also a member of the motor racing circuit consortium of Pergusa (Consorzio Ente Autodromo Pergusa) and as such is both supervisor and supervisee (!), has authorised the construction of a bypass to channel water from an artificial dam Lake Ancipa, in the Nebrodi mountains to Lake Pergusa. The project, already under way, has not undergone an EIA (environmental impact assessment), despite the fact that it will alter a delicate ecosystem, and has failed to obtain documentation relating to the constraints which apply to the area. Moreover, the project fails to take account of the filling time required, the magnitude of which, in terms of biological regeneration, must in any case be measured in years, given that the ecosystems in question are extremely delicate. Neither does it offer sufficient assurances that the rapid and alarming filling of the lake will not cause irreparable damage to the hydrobiological ecosystem. The potential damage to nests, for example, particularly those of fresh-water animals, to the riparian vegetation and especially to the population of plankton and purple sulphur bacteria (which could destroy the unusual red- water phenomenon), has not been measured. The Sicilian branch of WWF Italy, an ad hoc local committee for the protection of Lake Pergusa and hundreds of members of the public, including foreigners, are taking action to prevent the project from being carried out. Can the Commission intervene in order to halt this project, which would affect the ecosystem of the area in question? Can the Commission take action against the Region of Sicily to ensure that this SPA is genuinely protected and that public bodies do not attempt to damage it, also by taking steps to ensure that the Province of Enna is no longer responsible for managing the area? Have any projects concerning Lake Pergusa been financed by the Commission with European funds? If so, what steps does the Commission intend to take to prevent the provincial authorities from ruining the area in question instead of helping to protect it? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (3 September 2001) The project mentioned by the Honourable Member could be covered by the class 10f (inland-waterway construction not included in Annex I, canalization and flood-relief works) of projects listed in Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC (1) which has modified Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. 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). The site mentioned by the Honourable Member (Lago di Pergusa IT060002) is a Special Protection Area (SPA) under Directive 79/409/EEC (3) on the conservation of wild birds. Under Directive 92/43/EEC (4)on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, with reference to SPAs, any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the specific case, 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, within the limits conferred on it by the EC Treaty, the observance of Community law. On the basis of Article 211 of the EC Treaty, ‘in order to ensure the proper functioning and development of the common market, the Commission shall ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied’. On the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty ‘if the C 40 E/138 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14.2.2002 Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under this Treaty, it shall deliver a reasoned opinion on the matter after giving the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations. If the State concerned does not comply with the opinion within the period laid down by the Commission, the latter may bring the matter before the Court of Justice.’ The Commission has a discretionary power in deciding whether to initiate such a procedure (5). It must be stressed that the judgements of the Court of Justice only state whether there has been an infringement. The Court of Justice cannot issue orders to administrative bodies. Only national courts can issue orders to administrative bodies and annul a national decision. The project concerning Lake Pergusa has not been co-financed by Structural funds. (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997. (2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985. (3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979. (4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. (5) Priorities and criteria governing the Commission’s discretionary power are listed in the Fourteenth annual report on monitoring the application of Community law 1996 (OJ C 332, 3.11.1997). (2002/C 40 E/147) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1908/01 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (28 June 2001) Subject: Trade relations with Armenia On 22 April 1996 in Luxembourg, the Partnership Agreement between Armenia and the European Union and its Member States was concluded. The European Parliament delivered a favourable opinion on 28 January 1997 (recommendation by rapporteur La Malfa). I should like to ask a number of questions to monitor implementation of that agreement in practice: 1. Can the Commission inform me of how trade between the European Union and its Member States on the one hand and the Republic of Armenia on the other has developed since the said partnership agreement was concluded? Can the Commission inform me more specifically on how exports of Armenian agricultural products to the European Union have developed? 2. Article 1 of the agreement states one of its objectives as being ‘to promote trade and investment and harmonious economic relations between the Parties and so to foster their sustainable economic development’. To what extent does the Commission consider that the stated objective has been achieved? If the objective has been achieved, is the Commission prepared to move on to a subsequent step? If the objective has not been achieved, to what extent is the Commission prepared to step up investment in order nevertheless to achieve that objective? 3. The contracting parties have accorded each other the status of ‘most favoured trading partner’. Does Armenia comply with that commitment in relation to the European Union and its Member States? Has the commitment to treat the European Union Member States at least equally with the former Soviet states been complied with in the interim? Does the Commission agree that it would be appropriate for the European Union to adopt more practical trade-promoting measures in favour of Armenia? 4. Are there any plans to adjust the existing contractual relations between Armenia and the European Union and its Member States? 5. To what extent is the Commission prepared within the framework of a development relationship to boost and support private initiatives that will help to increase trade between the two parties? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (3 September 2001) Bilateral trade between the Community and Armenia increased regularly since the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) entered into force two years ago. Trade progressed from € 226 million in.