WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1206/98 by Ulf HOLM to the Commission. Protection of groundwater in the EU
Date: 1998-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, HOLM
Subjects: Sweden, dangerous substance, environmental protection, groundwater, industrial waste, lake, public health, waste disposal, waste management, water pollution

C 402/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.12.98

(98/C 402/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1200/98

by Jesœs Cabez(cid:243)n Alonso (PSE) and Juan Colino Salamanca (PSE) to the Commission

(24 April 1998)

Subject: Olive oil aid unclaimed by Spain

A member of the Council (the Spanish Agriculture Minister) has pointed out that, in the decade from 1986 to
1996, Spain failed to claim Ptas 300 000 million in aid for the olive sector.

In view of the fact that this is not merely an opinion but a statement by a member of the Council of Ministers, is
the Commission able to confirm this figure on the basis of the data in its possession?

If the figure is accurate, why did Spain fail to claim the aid?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 May 1998)

The Minister for Agriculture pointed out at a Council meeting that, for the period 1986-1996, Spain failed to
receive ESP 300 000 million in aid for the olive-oil sector. This figure is based on comparing the Spanish sector(cid:146)s
actual position during the transitional period of accession (when it received less aid than the other producing
Member States) with its hypothetical position had there been complete integration from the outset in 1986.

The theoretical loss of aid is a consequence of the transitional period provided for by the Spanish Accession
Treaty. Conversely, the Spanish sector(cid:146)s position could have also been presented as having improved compared
with what it had been before joining the Community.

The Spanish olive-growing sector can thus be said to have either lost or gained during the transitional period,
depending on the yardstick chosen. The Commission prefers to stick to the facts and does not have to substantiate
interpretations put forward by other sources.

(98/C 402/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1206/98

by Ulf Holm (V) to the Commission

(6 April 1998)

Subject: Protection of groundwater in the EU

The municipality of Vester(cid:229)s, Sweden, has been the scene of political controversy and legal action concerning the
dumping by the municipal CHP plant of coal ash (cefyll) in Lake M(cid:228)laren. In the first phase, about 3000 tonnes
was used as a filler in the construction of an embankment. As the lake supplies drinking water for a large number
of people and the place where the water is drawn from the lake is close to the site where the ash is being dumped,
this is a matter of utmost importance. Legal proceedings resulted in the defendants being cleared by the district
court on the grounds that they had not acted in breach of the conditions the county administrative board had
imposed on the use of the material, although it was conceded that those conditions were unclearly worded.

Does the Commission take the view that EU rules on the protection of groundwater should be applicable in this
case?

Does it also take the view that it is guaranteed that no harmful substances can seep out into the lake(cid:146)s highly
sensitive aquatic environment?