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 39kWORD 18k
7 October 2019
P-003135-19
Question for written answer P-003135-19
to the Commission
Rule 138
Michal Wiezik (PPE)

 Subject:  Infringement case 2018/4076

Could the Commission specify why it considers the grounds for infringement case 2018/4076 against Slovakia to be less admissible than the grounds for the Bialowieza case against Poland?

If the Commission considers infringement case 2018/4076 to be strong, but has concluded that the dialogue with Slovakia is no longer fulfilling the aim of saving the last remnants of Capercaillie habitat, why is it not taking action and why has it not applied for interim proceedings with provision for a penalty payment in the event that Slovakia does not respect the interim order?

In its response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion, Slovakia claimed to have put an end to active forest management in its Special Protection Areas. That is unfortunately not the case and the EU is consequently losing natural sites of great value.

Last updated: 14 October 2019Legal notice