WRITTEN QUESTION E-1000/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. 1999 discharge ‐ agriculture.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, aid to agriculture, fraud, suspension of aid, terms for aid

C 350 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Geodynamics at the University of Zaragoza, also submitted a report a few years ago in which he warned of
the (cid:145)disastrous consequences(cid:146) which may ensue if the reservoir is filled.

1.
Does the Commission not consider that the Spanish Government is contravening Articles 1, 6 and 17
of the Convention on Nuclear Safety which was drawn up under the auspices of the International Atomic
Energy Agency and to which Spain and Euratom are signatory?

2. Would the Commission support
local communities and international environmental groups,
including Friends of the Earth Europe, the WWF and the International Rivers Network, which are calling
on the Spanish authorities to impose a moratorium on the filling of the reservoir until an international
group of experts have certified that it is safe?

3.
Is the Commission aware of the significance and the impact of the Itoiz reservoir within the National
Hydrological Plan as an item of water redistribution infrastructure within the projected scheme for
diverting water from the Ebrus?

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

(6 July 2001)

1.
The Euratom Community has acceded to the Convention on Nuclear Safety. The scope of the
Euratom Community competence under the Convention, except for Articles 15 and 16(2) thereof, is under
the assessment of
for the Commission to say whether Spain is in
the Court of
contravention of the Convention.

Justice.

is not

It

However, it must be mentioned that Chapter 3 of Title II of the Euratom Treaty headed (cid:145)Health and Safety(cid:146)
and the secondary legislation adopted thereunder are laying down rules for protection of general public
against risk arising from ionizing radiation, both in normal circumstances and in case of radiological
emergencies. In accordance with Article 124 of the Euratom Treaty, the Commission will ensure that these
rules are correctly applied in the specific context of the Itoiz reservoir, particularly in relation to the
nuclear plant of Asco.

2.
As regards the environmental law deriving from the EC Treaty, the Commission is, under Article 211
(ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, responsible for ensuring that Community law is correctly applied by the
Member States. However, it has to be stressed that the Commission is unable to intervene in matters which
are not covered by Community law.

The safety of the reservoir at the Itoiz dam is a matter which falls outside the scope of Community
environmental law. Questions relating to the technical quality of a project are outside the scope of the
impact assessment directive (1). There are thus no legal grounds for the Commission to take any action
with regard to this issue.

3.
The Spanish Government has informed the Commission of its proposed National Hydrological Plan.
The Commission has brought to the attention of the Spanish authorities the need to ensure, in the course
of the formal adoption procedure for the final Plan and subsequently in the process of its implementation,
the full respect of all relevant Community environmental legislation and policy.

(1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985).

(2001/C 350 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1000/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the Questions raised in various aspects. Can the
Commission therefore clarify the following points:

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/67

With regard to question 2.7(c): The reply does not correspond to the question. The question refers to fraud
and irregularities, and not the common organisations of the market designed to restrict surplus production.
Consequently, the Commission is asked once again to reply to the above question.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 June 2001)

The question in point 2.7(c) of the second (cid:145)Blak(cid:146) questionnaire for the 1999 discharge, which the
Honourable Member is referring to, was:

Will the Commission indicate where in the regulatory framework regarding consumption aid for
Skimmed milk, or any other dairy product, penalties up to eight times the amount of the subvention
can be claimed (e.g. consumption aid for olive oil, paragraph 6, article 12, Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 643/93, of 19 March 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2677/85 laying down
implementing rules in respect of the system of consumption aid for olive oil (1)).

In the reply given to point 2.7 (c) the Commission explained the procedure for paying aid for the use of
skimmed milk powder or butter in certain industrial products and gave examples of sanctions in the milk
sector.

It is correct that the Commission did not explicitly reply to the question of where in the milk sector
sanctions of up to eight
the Commission can inform the
Honourable Member that such an explicit provision is not foreseen in any of the regulations governing the
milk sector.

times an aid can be claimed. However,

Aid for the use of skimmed milk powder in animal feed and for butter used in ice cream, pastry etc. is
only paid to undertakings approved by the Member States (Commission Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999, of
17 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards the
grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such
skimmed-milk powder (2), article 9, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2571/1997, of 15 December
1997 on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for cream, butter and concentrated
butter for use in the manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (3), article 10). The
approval is subject to a number of conditions. If controls reveal that an undertaking does not comply with
these conditions, in addition to the loss of the aid, the approval can be suspended for one to twelve
months, depending on the seriousness of the irregularity. This may indeed in itself constitute a heavy
sanction.

In order to complete the information, it may be of interest to the Honourable Member to know that for
area based aid schemes subject to controls under the Integrated Administration and Control System,
a sanction can reach almost five times the aid unduly applied for or already paid. If a control reveals
a discrepancy of more than 20 %, the beneficiary loses the total amount of the aid.

(1) OJ L 69, 20.3.1993.
(2) OJ L 340, 31.12.1999.
(3) OJ L 350, 20.12.1997.

(2001/C 350 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the
Commission therefore clarify the following points?