WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/00 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Social Fund in Catalonia.
Date: 2000-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, EU financing arrangements, European Social Fund, Spain

C 151 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

national health insurance systems (89/105/EEC) (1), the effective safeguarding of legal rights, which is a
requirement under that Directive, is no longer guaranteed in Germany.

1.

Does the Commission agree?

Is it true that, because of a similar case, the Commission launched Treaty infringement proceedings

2.
in autumn 1999 against Austria?

3.

Has the Commission been notified of the German plan, and what action does it propose to take?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2000)

Two complaints have been lodged with the Commission against Germany for an infringement of Council
Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
systems. The Commission is presently examining the two complaints thoroughly. At the moment, the
Commission is not in a position to indicate whether it considers the German law on the reimbursement of
costs for medicinal products is contrary to the Directive.

It is correct that the Commission initiated in October 1999 infringement proceedings against Austria
under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. In these proceedings, which are now pending before
the Court of justice, it is alleged that Austria did not respect the obligations laid down in Directive 89/105/
EEC.

So far, Germany has not notified either the amendment of the relevant legal acts or the contents of the
(cid:145)positive list(cid:146). In the two complaints against Germany, however, the relevant legal provisions are indicated
and will be scrutinised within these infringement proceedings.

(2001/C 151 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3381/00

by Concepci(cid:243) Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2000)

Subject: European Social Fund in Catalonia

Reports in the Spanish media indicate that, as a precautionary measure, the Commission has held back
€ 14 million from the European Social Fund earmarked for Catalonia. Since these reports appear to have
originated from Community sources, will the Commission specify the exact figure involved?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

In the framework of the partnership principle, and on the basis of documentation provided on one of the
promoters subject to judicial proceedings, in September 1999, the Commission made an initial estimate of
the amounts to be retained from the 1999 advances. For the moment, the judicial investigation concerns
operations undertaken in 1996, but a possible extension to the whole 1994-1999 programming period
might be envisaged. This provisional retention would have allowed payment of the advances pending.
However, the Member State rejected the Commission(cid:146)s proposal by letter of 27 October 1999. At that
stage, having deducted the amount blocked on the grounds of the state aid regulation, Council Regulation
(EC) no 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty establishing the
Community to certain categories of horizontal state aid (1), the Catalan Region should have received € 14
million from the Commission for the 1999 first advances request. This is the figure that has been reported
by the press.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/155

At present, the financial requests that have not been treated by the Commission amount to € 63 million,
of which € 31 million are still blocked on the grounds of the state aids Regulation and € 32 million are
awaiting an examination as to the admissibility of the expenditure in question. These amounts correspond
to the Objective 2 1998 final claim and the 1999 advances for all the objectives requested by the Member
State.

(1) OJ L 142, 14.5.1998.

(2001/C 151 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Environmental impact of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link

(3 November 2000)

Two questions have been put to the Commission on the subject of the Asti-Cuneo motorway link (P-1378/
00 (1) and E-2356-00 (2)). However, in its reply of 14 September 2000 to the latter question (cid:129) E-2356/00
(cid:129) the Commission did not, as requested, address the aspects relating to the controversial matter of the
environmental impact assessment. The Commission is therefore requested to give a further reply, bearing
in mind that the modified Asti-Cuneo motorway project cannot be considered to meet the criteria laid
down for the original project in the environmental impact assessment, as suggested by the Commission in
its reply to the first question (P-1378/00).

The second plan has not, in fact, significantly changed the layout of the motorway link: only 2 kms have
been modified, out of a total of approximately 77 kms which for the most part still run along the banks of
the river Stura, a fast-flowing river that is subject to serious flooding. Inter alia, the Council(cid:146)s approval
of September 1994 was given without an argued justification (cid:129) the requested technical checks by the
Ministry of Public Works were not in fact ever published (cid:129) and on the basis of an incorrect technical
opinion given by an official in the Environment Ministry(cid:146)s secretariat which was inconsistent with the
unfavourable interim opinion delivered by the ministerial committee in the context of the environmental
impact assessment of June 1994. An inquiry into the latter episode is currently in progress in the Italian
Court of Auditors.

Meanwhile, although the Council of State(cid:146)s ruling on the application for suspension of the work which was
turned down by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in the context of the appeal of 2 December 1995
lodged by the environmental associations is expected by 1 November, work on the most controversial
stretch of the motorway (Massimini-Cuneo) has recently been intensified (3).

Can the Commission state its views on the environmental impact assessment procedure? What measures
does the Commission propose to take in order to relaunch discussion of the Council of Ministers decision
authorising construction of the link despite the negative outcome of the environmental impact assessment?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 218.
(2) OJ C 81 E, 13.3.2001, p. 190.
(3) The Regional Court has not yet ruled, however, on the merits of the appeal itself.

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

(4 December 2000)

The fact of granting a development consent to a project which has been made subject to an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) procedure, and which has received a negative assessment, does not necessarily
constitute a breach of Community directives on EIA (Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (1) on
the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), amending Directive 85/337/EEC).

The Commission has the task of ensuring the correct application of Community law, in the light of the
powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty. As the guardian of the EC Treaty, it does not hesitate to take all
necessary measures,
the
EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of Community law.

including infringement proceedings under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of