Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 51kWORD 19k
20 February 2019
E-000917-19
Question for written answer E-000917-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Marco Affronte (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  Koper-Divaca double track
 Answer in writing 

The ‘second track’ project for the Koper-Divaca railway line was definitively approved by the Slovenian Government on 24 January 2019. It has been a lengthy procedure, given that as early as 5 November 2013 the Italian Ministry of the Environment had sent Slovenia, following input from the Region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Note ref. 25284 in which it raised huge concerns about the environmental impact of the work, which will affect the areas SAC IT3340006 Carso Triestino e Goriziano and the SPA IT3341002 Aree Carsiche della Venezia Giulia, where there is also a special area of conservation (SAC).

On 22 January 2019 a contribution of EUR 250 million out of the EUR 1 200 million earmarked for the work was still scheduled on the website of the European Investment Bank, despite the fact that the project (No 20170183) is still at the assessment stage, while the Commission has earmarked (apparently) EUR 109 million and the European Cohesion Fund a further EUR 80 million.

However, there appears to be no cross-border agreement on the work, as confirmed by the Regional Minister of the Environment on 30 January 2019 at the plenary sitting of the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Council.

Can the Commission therefore answer the following questions:
1. Is the cross-border agreement not a prerequisite for the funding of the work?
2. Given that, under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, it is up to the national authorities to assess any negative impact a project might have on a Natura 2000 site, what does the Commission intend to do to preserve the protected areas mentioned above?
Original language of question: IT 
Last updated: 5 March 2019Legal notice