WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Declining support for the accession of applicant countries and possible repercussions of referenda.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, accession to the European Union, opinion poll, public awareness campaign, public opinion, ratification of an agreement

C 93 E/100

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Has the Spanish Government therefore submitted the river basin management plans and an analysis of
pressures and impacts, including the relevant economic analysis?

If the Spanish Government has not complied with these requirements, will the EU providing funding for
the projects contained in the National Hydrological Plan, including the projects designed to increase the
size of the Yesa, Santaliestra and Biscarrués reservoirs?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 27.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2001)

The Spanish authorities have sent the Commission their management plans for river basins (‘planes
hidrológicos de cuenca’) under the infringement procedure relating to the implementation of Council
Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into
the aquatic environment of the Community (1). The plans were adopted by the Spanish Government in
1998, as a result of developments announced in the the Spanish Water Management Law 29/1985.

The Commission would point out that, as mentioned in the answer to written question E-0003/01 (2), the
river basin management provisions of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and
of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water
policy (3) are not yet applicable in the Member States.

Under Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (4) and Council
Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (5), any project granted part-financing must comply with Community legislation,
including
environmental provisions. The Commission will examine in the light of this rule each individual project
under Spain’s national hydrological plan put forward for part-financing.

It is perhaps worth pointing out that, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, both the plan itself
and the choice of projects put
forward for Community part-financing are matters for the Spanish
authorities.

(1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976.
(2) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 27.
(3) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000.
(4) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
(5) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 93 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2291/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Declining support for the accession of applicant countries and possible repercussions of referenda

1.
Is the Commission aware that in those East European countries with which the negotiations on
accession to the European Union are the most advanced public support for accession is declining, now that
is becoming increasingly evident what obligations accession entails and that accession will not
it
necessarily bring about a rapid rise in the standard of living, greater socio- economic security or unlimited
disbursement of European structural and cohesion funds?

In which applicant countries is there a possibility of a referendum being held on accession and in

2.
which countries is it already likely that this will happen after completion of the negotiations?

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/101

In which of the current Member States is there the possibility, on the basis of legal provisions or
3.
government intentions, that the population will be able to express its views on the admission of new
member states? In particular, does the Commission anticipate a referendum in Austria where fears of an
influx of job-seekers from new member states and concerns about the Temelin nuclear power station may
be used as a means of gathering domestic political support?

4.
How does the Commission view the possibility of referenda in the Member States, and how does it
access this possibility in the applicant countries, particularly against the background of the statements
made by Mr Verheugen in 2000 on the desirability of increasing the involvement of the electorate by
holding referenda on such fundamental issues?

5.
Does the Commission already have an emergency plan with regard to what should be done if the
accession of one or more Member States is blocked at a late stage by decisions by the electorate, who find
the pace of accession too fast or who pose conditions on accession other than those agreed during the
negotiations or even totally reject the very principle of accession?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

The Commission closely monitors the state of public opinion on accession in the candidate countries via
its delegation in each country, while its enlargement communication strategy provides factual information
about all aspects of the accession process. A recent survey found an absolute (in some cases relative)
majority of the population in each country in favour of its government’s integration policy.

Individual countries may hold referendums in connection with their ratification of the accession treaty, if
their constitutional and legal processes allow or require it. According to the Commission’s information a
referendum would be a constitutional requirement for ratification of the accession treaty in Romania and
Slovakia.

The accession negotiations culminate in the signing of an accession treaty that then has to be ratified
according to the constitutional procedures in each signatory country. The Commission sees no reason to
give particular consideration to the outcome of the ratification process.

(2002/C 93 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Elimination of differences of interpretation with regard to VAT refunds

1.
Does the Commission recall the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of
3 June 1992 (Case C-287/91) in which Italy was found to have acted in breach of the Eighth VAT
Directive 79/1072/EEC (1)?

2. What implications will adoption of the Commission proposal of 17 June 1998 (2) to amend Directive
77/388/EEC (3) have for the refund of VAT by Italy to foreign firms?

Are there still differences of opinion on the application of the 1992 judgment, with Italy being

3.
accused of non-compliance, not only by firms but also by Member States?

In the Commission’s view, how long can such differences of opinion on conflicting interpretations

4.
continue?