Activities of Heinz K. BECKER related to 2012/2264(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the Special Report of the European Ombudsman concerning his inquiry into complaint 2591/2010/GG against the European Commission (Vienna Airport) PDF (198 KB) DOC (99 KB)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas, having submitted 18 special reports in 16,5 years, the Ombudsman has so far acted very cooperatively and responsibly by using such reports to the European Parliament only as ultimate political tool, thus demonstrating his general spirit for consensual solutions;
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that the alleged maladministration concerned the Commission's failure, on the one hand,way in which the Commission handled the infringement proceedings against Austria, notably its failure to ensure both, that the authority which had issued permits for works without the required impact assessment would not be responsible for conducting the ex-post EIA and, on the other, to show that it had appropriately followed the Ombudsman's recommendations as regards that the complainant would have access to legal redress against this assessment;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that this special report does not deal with the question of whether the Austrian authorities acted wrongly, but addresses the question of whether the Commission failed in its obligations when investigating and acting on a complaint it had received and in its response to the Ombudsman's requests and recommendations from his first investigation into this case;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Advises competent authorities in the Member States to pay attention to potential conflicts of interest already within the present state of the law and to prepare for eventual changes in EU law in this respect; stresses the role of national Ombudsmen as important mediators to help citizens take action against potential conflicts of interest within Member States' administration;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Considers, with regard to the Ombudsman's second allegation, that an honest, active and comprehensive inclusion of the local population in the application of the EIA directive is on the whole essential and thus believes open and transparent mediation procedures should be carried out more frequently ahead of projects with potentially big impact on the local environment and human health; in this context, applauds the extensive public mediation ahead of the EIA concerning the construction of a third runway at Vienna airport, which cumulatively also assessed the impact, e.g. the sound nuisance, of those enlargements affected by the infringement case at hand and to which a full review procedure is available;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Agrees with the Ombudsman that keeping and updating clear records forms part of good administration as it enables, for instance, the European Ombudsman to verify that his recommendations have been appropriately taken into account;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Considers it also advisable and an important requirement of good administrative practice to maintain a constant, clear and consistent correspondence with the complainants during infringement procedures and with the Ombudsman during his investigations;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Welcomes the Commission's statement that it intends to improve its practice in this respecton both these issues, written records and thorough correspondence, in order to avoid the problems in communication experienced in the case at hand;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Makes clear that neither the Commission nor the Austrian authorities were violating any existing European legislation when carrying out the ex post EIA which was based on an ad-hoc negotiated sui generis procedure;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Considers that the circumstances which gave rise to the opening of the Commission's infringement procedure and consequently to the complaint to the European Ombudsman raise serious questions as regards the implementation by a Member State, in this case Austria, of Directive 85/337; at that time; acknowledges that the 2009 revision of the Austrian federal law implementing the EIA directive took duly into account, inter alia, the findings of the infringement procedure at hand and thereby brought Austrian legislation into conformity with EU law in this respect;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Believes that, in cases where a Member State fails to applyprojects are very likely to infringe basic requirements of the EIA Directive, the concerned public should have effective legal instruments available to it to seek suspensimmediate clarification ofby the authorisation of projects, including the possibility of injunction measurresponsible EIA authority concerning the compliance of the projects with EU rules, so as to prevent irreversible damage when such projects are implemented;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes that the current directive does not contain requirements relating to the objectivity and impartiality of the authorities responsible for authorisation and does not set any such requirements for bodies which carry out an EIA; considersnotes that it does not contain any provisions either about how to proceed when a project has already been implemented or is close to finalisation or about how the concerned public could, by means of a clear and non-bureaucratic procedure, obtain immediate clarification from the responsible EIA authority about the conformity with EU rules of such projects, which are very likely to infringe basic provisions of the EIA directive; considers therefore that the review of the EIA Directive offers a good opportunity to introduce such requirements and provisions;
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Considers that this case also shows that, in addition to measures to strengthen the provisions of the EIA Directive, clearer procedures are required for infringement proceedings, preferably through the adoption of a general regulation on administrative procedures for the EU's administration, thereby strengthening the position of the complainant; considers that such a regulation would be well positioned to clarify the authorities' obligations when communicating with complainants in an infringement case or with bodies representing European citizens like the Petitions committee and the Ombudsman, for instance to introduce an obligation to respond as soon as possible to recommendations of the Ombudsman in order to avoid misinterpretations as they occurred in the case at hand;