WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/99 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Shortcomings in the Casa de Campo improvement project in Madrid.
Date: 1999-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cohesion Fund, Community of Madrid, protected area

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2001/C 46 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/99

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: Shortcomings in the (cid:145)Casa de Campo(cid:146) improvement project in Madrid

On 31 March, 20 November 1997 and, more recently, 1 October 1999, the civic association (cid:145)Save the
Casa de Campo(cid:146) wrote to DG XVI of the Commission setting out the numerous shortcomings that, in their
opinion, were affecting the implementation of project 95.11.61.021-E relating to the (cid:145)development of
degraded areas and general improvements to the environment of the Casa de Campo park(cid:146), financed by the
Cohesion Funds and carried out by Madrid city council(cid:146)s environmental department.

In particular, the two much trumpeted dams in the Meaques river built in the first phase of the project;
these simply turned into foul-smelling stagnant ponds producing hordes of mosquitoes, quite contrary to
their initial purpose, as provided for in the project, namely keeping the watercourse biologically clean.
These two dams were later destroyed.

Furthermore, on 28 February 1998, the Madrid city council approved the Second Integrated Improvement
of Madrid Scheme, also financed by the Cohesion Fund, which included various plans relating to the
conditioning of the Meaques river, at a cost of 388 million pesetas, and the construction of four more
dams.

Could the Commission check whether the construction and destruction of these dams has not been paid
for twice over? Has the project been delayed, and if so, for what reason? What are the reasons for
modifying the project to include the creation of new car parks, instead of implementing measures to
control the risk of soil erosion? Why have historical and environmental features not been restored as in the
case of the historical adobe wall built in the 18th Century? Why has the daily traffic flow of more than
50 000 cars across the Casa de Campo park not been restricted, in view of its detrimental effect on the
environment?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2000)

In the first phase of the project, the Commission part-financed two small dams. On the basis of new
hydrological studies the responsible authorities considered these dams inadequate and proposed, in the
second phase, the construction of five lagoon areas as a natural purification system. The Commission will
examine the results of this proposal.

C 46 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

All payments by the Commission are based on the specific items listed in the decision, which means that
assistance cannot be provided twice for the same expenditure. The first phase of the project was finished
according to the timetable drawn up when the part-financing decision was adopted.

Car parks were provided for in the initial decision to prevent vehicles parking in the protected areas. The
rebuilding of the boundary wall of the park is included in the second phase of the project and is largely
complete. The two phases of the project made no provision for a ban on traffic on the road system in the
(cid:145)Casa de Campo(cid:146) park.

(2001/C 46 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2036/99

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Knorr Bremse and European funding

Knorr Bremse has announced several hundred redundancies in Kingswood, Bristol (UK), in order to transfer
work to its factories in France, Italy or Germany and Hungary.

Can the Commission say whether any financial assistance of any kind has been asked for by this company
or given to this company for job creation in France, Italy or Germany or through TACIS and PHARE
programmes in Hungary?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

According to information from the European Social Fund Mission in France, in 1997 and 1998 the Knorr
Dahl Freinage branch in Lisieux (Lower Normandy) received financial assistance under Objective 4 for
training (improving skills in various fields) amounting to FRF 909 000. This assistance was not aimed at
job creation, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question.

In Berlin, Germany, Hasse & Wrede GmbH, a subsidiary company of Knorr Bremse AG, received
DEM 533 000 for investments in machinery and equipment, mainly in order to retain existing jobs.

In Italy this company received no Community part-financing.

As far as the Commission is aware, Knorr Bremse has never asked for or benefited from Community
assistance through the P programme in Hungary, and this country is not eligible for the T programme.

Finally, Knorr Bremse received no funding under the Community initiatives A or E.

(2001/C 46 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2629/99

by Francesco Speroni (TDI), Umberto Bossi (TDI)
and Gian Gobbo (TDI) to the Commission

(12 January 2000)

Subject: Participation of the President of the Commission, Romano Prodi, in the international summit of

the left

On Saturday 20 and Sunday 21 November 1999, Romano Prodi,
in the capacity of President of the
Commission, participated in the international summit of left-wing leaders, together with Jospin, D(cid:146)Alema,
Clinton, Blair et al.