Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-002789/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Jutta Paulus (Verts/ALE)
In its answer to written question E-001537/2025[1], the Commission mentions its competence to issue an opinion under the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC (the Habitats Directive) for projects affecting priority habitat types such as 91E0*. Against this background, reference is made to Germany’s plans to build a new northern section of the A33 motorway in the Osnabrück area. The extension will cross the Wiehengebirge bat habitat near Osnabrück (Natura site DE3614334) and is likely to have a significant impact on the priority habitat type 91E0*, most notably because of the increased nitrogen pollution from road traffic. According to the press, the project has been submitted to the Commission for assessment.
- 1.In order to carry out a comprehensive assessment, has the Commission assumed that all relevant documents concerning the conservation area, including any objections from public participation, have been submitted by the Member State?
- 2.When drafting its opinion, has it take account of whether the site conservation objectives have been set in accordance with the provisions of the Habitats Directive and the ECJ case-law?
- 3.Does it agree that, given the constant nitrogen pollution the conservation area will likely be exposed to, a permanent speed limit needs to be considered as a necessary mitigation measure under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive?
Submitted: 9.7.2025
- [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2025-001537-ASW_EN.html