WRITTEN QUESTION P-2487/01 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission. Starting work on the Sant Jordi purification plant.
Date: 2001-09-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, wastewater, water treatment

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/183

(2002/C 81 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2471/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Fraud against the EU committed by Italians

The Commission grants substantial Community contributions in various sectors and invariably has the task
of carrying out checks and ascertaining any fraud committed by the recipients. Can it supply a list
specifying the cases of fraud against the Community detected in Italy in the years 1998, 1999, and 2000,
the amounts involved, and the percentages recovered to date?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Commission would point out that a distinction should be made between direct management of
Community funds and management shared with the Member States (indirect expenditure via the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-Guarantee) and structural operations).

The Member States have prime responsibility for managing indirect expenditure, including prevention and
prosecution of cases of irregularities and fraud and recovery of funds. Member States are required to notify
the Commission of cases of irregularities. The Commission can be called on to take action in particular, to
carry out checks or additional inquiries.

In Italy(cid:146)s case, recent annual reports by the Commission on the protection of the Communities(cid:146) financial
interests and the fight against fraud give an idea of the number and scale of irregularities as well as the
level of recovery with regard to both the EAGGF-Guarantee and structural operations (1).

In the area of direct expenditure, for which the Commission is responsible, no statistics are available
showing how many Italian nationals have been involved in irregularities and fraud and the percentage of
the amounts recovered.

(1) COM(1999) 509 final; COM(2000) 718 final;

(COM)2001) 255 final/2: See also the First OLAF report on

operational activities (1 June 1999-31 May 2000): http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/reports/index_en.htm.

(2002/C 81 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2487/01

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 September 2001)

Subject: Starting work on the Sant Jordi purification plant

My Written Question E-0470/01 (1) of
proceedings with regard to building a purification plant at Sant Jordi in Mallorca.

last February asked the Commission about alleged illegal

The Commission, which had not been aware of the facts until that point, claims that it contacted the
Spanish authorities to obtain their comments on the application of Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 97/11/
EC (3) in respect of the case. It would appear that the planned siting did not meet these Directives.

The total cost of the project is 5 000 million pesetas, 85 % whereof is aid supplied from European funds.

On Thursday 30 August, the Spanish Minister of the Environment announced that he intended to begin
building work on the plant in October. Ministry sources stated that with regard to the alleged illegal siting
of the construction project, Brussels had deemed the new plant feasible.

C 81 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

What was the result of the Commission(cid:146)s contacting the Spanish authorities?

Does the project now enjoy full Commission approval? If so, does the Commission believe that it is
appropriate to fund a project whose allegedly illegal siting is already being examined and has been declared
admissible by the European Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Petitions?

Further, on 5 April 2001, the Ministry of the Environment replied to an enquiry from the organised
opposition to the project that a deadline for the European funds for the project ended in July. Madrid is
now claiming that the deadline is October, and, moreover, that this is a flexible deadline. What is the real
deadline the Ministry needs to meet in order not to lose the subsidy?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 122.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

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

(11 October 2001)

As it mentioned in its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-470/01 (1), the Commission
has contacted the Spanish authorities to obtain their comments on the application of the Community
environment legislation that might be relevant to this case. The Commission has already received and
examined the Spanish authorities(cid:146) reply.

First of all, the Spanish authorities had not classified the area where the municipal waste water treatment
plant was to be built as a Special Protection Area for birds pursuant to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of
2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2). Neither have they included this area in their national
list of sites of Community interest likely to contribute to the coherence of the Natura 2000 network in
accordance with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora (3). As a result, from the point of view of nature conservation, this case is entirely
the responsibility of the Spanish authorities.

With regard to the obligations arising out of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the answer to the previous written question.

It should be pointed out that Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/
EEC does not apply to this case on account of the date of the request for authorisation of the project
concerned.

Projects for waste water treatment plants are to be found in Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC. According
to Article 4(2) of that Directive, projects of the classes listed in Annex II have to be made subject to an
assessment where the Member State concerned considers that their characteristics so require. The Spanish
authorities inform the Commission that after examining the project the Environment ministry did not
consider it necessary to put this project through the formal environmental impact assessment procedure.

At all events, the Spanish authorities say that the project has been opened for public consultation and that
its effects on the environment have been assessed. They note that it is very necessary for the town of
Palma de Mallorca for this project to be carried out and placing this plant in service will make it possible
to comply with the obligations under Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban
waste-water treatment (4).

The Commission has been unable to conclude from its examination of this case that there has been a
breach of Community environment law.

The waste water treatment plant envisaged for the Prat de Sant
municipality of Palma de Mallorca,
estimated at € 22 451 million, Community aid amounts
Community participation.

Jordi area, corresponding to the
is co-financed by the Cohesion Fund (5). Of a total eligible cost
representing 85 %

to € 19 083 million,

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/185

The expenditure for the preparatory studies and the main works has to be made within the period between
28 July 1998 and 30 December 2003.

As regards the period in which the above expenditure is to be made, the Commission may postpone the
final date given above if the Member State sends it valid supporting material to justify this before the
finalisation date.

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 135, 30.5.1991.
(5) Decision C (1999) 2379, 26.7.1999.

(2002/C 81 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2488/01

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Proliferation of crime in the Member States

(5 September 2001)

for criminological

Data published by centres
international
organisations and the media point to a sharp rise in crime in many Member States of the Union, ranging
from organised crime and trafficking in human beings and drugs to youth crime. Police reports for the
period 1998-2000 are mainly concerned with cross-border crime (between Member States and with
eastern European countries), while the problem is exacerbated by a lack of adequate specialist police forces
and competent officials in terms of both quantity and quality.

reports by police authorities,

studies,

There is a direct link between these issues and public safety and quality of life in Europe. Politicians and
the authorities are also confused over which methods would be effective against such crime without
infringing civil rights.

The European Union has developed various policies and measures to combat crime, such as the STOP,
FALCONE, OISIN, ODYSSEUS and GROTIUS programmes. Recently, the European Network for Crime
Prevention convened for the first time and the Council adopted the two-year Hippocrates Programme.

Is the Commission satisfied with the results of those programmes? Does it intend to publish detailed and
reliable information on indicators of crime in the Member States? What additional measures will it propose
to tackle such criminal activities effectively?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2001)

The aim of the programmes implemented under Title VI of the European Union Treaty (Oisin II, Stop II,
Grotius II, Falcone and Hipprokrates) is to facilitate cooperation between the Member States in the fight
against crime at Union level. This calls for financial instruments to supplement the Member States(cid:146) national
policies and instruments. Direct contact, indispensable in this field, serves to exchange experiences and
supports the development of projects whose European dimension contribute to the creation of a common
culture and a common area of freedom, security and justice.

In the absence of European crime indicators, it is difficult to gauge the direct impact of crime reduction
programmes. However, with the services of over 5000 professionals provided by the authorities concerned
or outside players (non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and universities), the projects co-financed
(exchanges, seminars, joint projects, implementation of the instruments adopted at Union level, etc (cid:133))
create links for easier day-to-day cooperation. This was borne out by the evaluation of the effectiveness of
these programmes in terms of their objectives in 2000.