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, Spain, complaint to the Commission, decontamination, environmental protection

C 170 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

The Government further claims that it has forwarded the information requested by the Commission and
that negotiations on calculating the amount of the CTCs are proceeding, yet fully admits that during these
talks, (cid:145)the concept of CTCs is not discussed.(cid:146)

In the light of these surprising remarks, I would ask whether:

(cid:129) the Commission agrees with the Spanish government(cid:146)s criterion whereby CTCs do not constitute a

state aid?

(cid:129) had the Spanish government submitted, by 17 September 1999, all the information requested by the

Commission?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1999)

As the Commission has already had occasion to point out to the Spanish Government, its preliminary
assessment is that (cid:145)costs of transition to competition(cid:146) or CTCs do indeed constitute state aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) (formerly Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty. As a result, the case has been entered in
the register of non-notified aid, and points 2.2.3 and 3.2 of the Decision of 8 July 1999 concerning the
application for a transitional regime submitted by Spain under Article 24 of Parliament and Council
Directive 96/0092/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in
electricity (1) stipulate that CTCs must be examined in the light of the competition rules, and in particular
Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. However, this is a preliminary assessment; the Commission(cid:146)s definitive
view will be confirmed in its final decision.

The Commission is in regular contact with the Spanish authorities on CTCs. On 17 September 1999 it had
not received all the information necessary to adopt a decision on the case.

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.

(2000/C 170 E/150)

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.

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/127

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?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 November 1999)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2000/C 170 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/99

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 1999)

Subject: The treatment of Romanies in the Czech Republic

Is the Commission aware that the council of the Czech town Usti Nad Labem is planning to build a wall in
a residential area to separate the part where Romanies live from the part where non-Romanies live?

Does the Commission consider this contrary to the Copenhagen criteria, which must be met by applicant
countries?

If so, what action will the Commission take?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

The Commission is aware of the decision taken on 15 September 1999 by the local council of Usti nad
Labem to build a (cid:145)ceramic fence(cid:146) to separate Roma and non-Roma residents in a street of this city. The wall
was built on 13 October 1999 despite opposition of the Czech government and cancellation of the
resolution of the local authorities voted by the Chamber of Deputies on the same day.

On 18 October 1999, the Czech government approved a resolution nominating a government representa-
tive, Mr Pavel Zarecky, Deputy minister of the Interior, to negotiate and find a viable solution with the
local authorities, as requested by the Chamber of Deputies. In this resolution, the Czech government also
called on the Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Legislative Council, Mr Pavel Rychetsky, to
discuss the progress of the government with representatives of the Roma community and to inform the
diplomatic missions of the states that have contacted the government of the Czech Republic on this issue.
The Czech government has expressed its intention to resolve this issue before the Helsinki European
Council in December 1999.

Following the building of the wall, the Commission expressed immediately its concern about the situation
prevailing in Usti nad Labem and is monitoring the situation closely. It maintains a continuous dialogue on
this issue with the Czech authorities and supports the Czech Republic in all its efforts towards a solution
conforming with the necessary respect for the Roma minority, and its protection.