WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. International child abduction.
Date: 1999-10-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: child protection, competence of the Member States, custody, illegal restraint, international convention, parental responsibility, public awareness campaign

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/25

(2000/C 225 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1824/99

by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Breaches of environmental and safety legislation by the river Umia dam scheme in Galicia

On an initial pretext of needing to provide water for the SalnØs district in Galicia, the Galician Fovernment
claim that there was an urgent need to build a dam on the river Umia, which was in fact quite fraudulently
intended to supply hydro electric power. The obligatory study of the impact of the scheme both on the
environment and on the safety of the local population was not carried out, although the scheme could
destroy a substantial part of the area(cid:146)s cultural and natural heritage and its tourist potential. The scheme
was rejected by an overwhelming majority of those affected (who were even subject to police violence
during peaceful demonstrations), and negative assessments were returned by the Galician ombudsman; the
scheme was condemned by the Galician High Court, which ordered building operations to cease forthwith
and for the land concerned to be returned to its owners. The Galician government quite illegally ignored
this ruling.

Is the Commission going to take the requisite and economic steps to ensure that the Galician Government
ceases its building work on the Umia dam and restores the status quo ante, so as to prevent the grave
prejudice which will otherwise be caused to the local population?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question concerns a dam project on the River Umia close to the village of
Caldas de Reis in Galicia. The Honourable Member has already lodged a petition regarding the project
(No 79/98).

In its examination of the petition, the Commission is attempting to clarify the situation as reported,
including the alleged misapplication of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/
EC, and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (2).

This detailed examination (cid:129) particularly necessary inasmuch as the project is part of the Autonomous
Community of Galicia(cid:146)s operational programme, which receives funding from the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) (cid:129) is not yet complete.

The Commission will not fail to keep the Honourable Member informed of further developments in this
matter within Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Petitions.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2000/C 225 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 1999)

Subject: International child abduction

in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgements
joint children
(COM(1999) 220), which relates to child abduction states that the courts with jurisdiction within the
meaning of Article 3 (Parental responsibility) shall exercise their jurisdiction (cid:145)in conformity with the Hague
Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction(cid:146).

responsibility for

C 225 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Do Member States currently inform their citizens of the implications and powers of this Hague Convention
in, for example, passports or literature relating to living abroad? Will this situation change with the
introduction of the proposed Council regulation?

Is the Commission aware of
Convention?

the degree of compliance by Member States with the terms of

the

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (1) states that
the international jurisdiction for which it provides is to be exercised in conformity with the 1980 Hague
Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and in particular Articles 3 and 16 thereof.
In other words, an authority or a court of a Member State which is a priori competent by virtue of the
spouses(cid:146) joint child being habitually resident in that Member State (Article 3 of the draft Regulation) may
not take measures relating to parental responsibility before a decision under the Hague Convention is
taken as to whether the child should be returned or not, if that habitual residence is the consequence of
the child being wrongfully removed or retained.

The Commission has no information on the steps taken by Member States to inform their nationals of the
implications and effects of this Convention. The adoption of the Regulation will create no obligations for
the Member States to provide information; the information measures mentioned by the Honourable
Member remain within the competence of the Member States. The Commission can, however, indicate
that the Hague Conference regularly organises meetings of all the Central Authorities designated to
monitor the implementation of the Convention, and seminars intended to raise the awareness of national
judges as to how it operates.

The Commission is not informed about cases of possible non-compliance with the Convention in question.
It would add that the Convention leaves some margin of discretion for the national authorities requested to
return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, particularly when the child has become
settled in its new environment (Article 12) or if the return of the child would expose it to physical or
psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13).

(1) COM(1999) 220 final.

(2000/C 225 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 October 1999)

Subject: Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006

The Commission has fixed the level of resources to be made available for each Member State for the new
taking as the
generation of agricultural development programmes for the period from 2000-2006,
criterion the average funds approved over the last three years for each Member State. As a result of this
distribution system, Greece will receive a mere 3 % of total funds to be made available for agricultural
development, despite the fact that agriculture in Greece is particularly disadvantaged owing to the large
agricultural population, the small size and family character of agricultural holdings and the particularly low
agricultural income.

According to the Greek Government, it is the Brussels (cid:145)bureaucracy(cid:146) which is responsible for the reduced
take-up rate over the last three years, since it has not allowed Greek programmes submitted to be adopted,
and as a result the final percentage of funds for Greece has fallen.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it intend to review the allocation of funds, so that this can take place on the basis of the real

situation and needs of the agricultural sector in each Member State?