WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/02 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Absence of any annual report on the action programme to combat Aids.
Date: 2002-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: AIDS, European Commission, action programme, dissemination of information, report

C 222 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Another project, Xerta-Senia, has also recently been submitted to public consultation by the Catalonian
Regional Government. Its route coincides with the southern stretch of the proposed Ebro transfer.

With these proposed projects, the Spanish Government and the Regional Government of Catalonia infringe
not only EU Environmental laws which protect the Ebro Delta (Habitats, Wild Birds, Water Framework
Directives), but also the EU Structural Funds legislation as these projects are in reality part of a major
project, the Ebro transfer, and therefore need an overall environmental impact assessment (cf Article 26,
Structural Funds Regulation).

In view of Commissioner Barnier’s clearly stated views on the need for structural funds projects to comply
with environmental legislation (cf. Letter to Guardian newspaper, 31 July 2002), what is the Commission’s
position as regards the potential impacts on the local environment of the ‘Tarragona-Barcelona’ and the
‘Xerta-Senia’ projects and of any future parts of the Ebro Transfer submitted before the overall EIA of the
transfer is elaborated?

Will the Commission request that the overall environmental assessment of the Ebro Transfer, including the
dams in the Pyrenees, is finalised before any decision on EU funding is taken?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The Commission has not yet received any application for aid from the Structural or Cohesion Funds for
the project indicated by the Honourable Member. The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/
1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) are such that any Commission
decision on part-financing of water projects in the Member States from these financial instruments requires
compliance with Community environment law, including the provisions on environmental impact studies.

The Commission is engaged in ongoing dialogue with the Spanish authorities on the potential
environmental impact of the Spanish national water plan in general and the Ebro transfer in particular.
It has been working closely with them on implementation of the relevant Community legislation dealing
with habitats, environmental impact assessment and water protection. Last January the Spanish authorities
voluntarily produced a provisional strategic environmental assessment of the Ebro transfer, and they have
also pledged to undertake environmental impact assessments for the entire Ebro transfer plus the transfers
to the various river basins in southern Spain. Under the Community legislation individual projects (dams,
aqueducts, tunnels etc.) will also be subject to impact assessments. In taking any decisions to support
projects in connection with the Ebro transfer from the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund the
Commission will of course take account of the various environmental impact assessments to be carried out
by the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
(2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 222 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/02

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Absence of any annual report on the action programme to combat Aids

The action programme to combat Aids was adopted on 21 February 2001.
In February 2002 at a
consultation meeting with the DG for Trade, NGOs were promised that a separate annual report on the
first year of the action programme would be presented shortly.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/25

This annual report is still not available and there are rumours that the action programme is merely to be
included in the European Commission’s general annual report.

1. Will the European Commission honour its promise to report separately on this action programme?

2.

3.

If not, why did it promise to do so earlier?

How does the European Commission define the word ‘shortly’?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2002)

The Commission is currently finalising an extensive analysis of the Programme for Action, 18 months after
its adoption. As the Programme for Action entails a series of new and important policy, programming and
implementation initiatives, reporting will indeed be done this time separately from the Annual Report on
the Development Policy.

The report is expected to be adopted in January 2003. The Commission will therefore keep its promise.

Reporting has been delayed mainly due to the Commission investing time and resources in the Global
Fund to fight human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS),
tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the follow-up to the Doha Declaration on Public Health and Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the establishment of the European and Developing Countries Clinical
Trials Platform, the discussions in Parliament and Council on the Regulation for a special budget line for
the Programme for Action, all of which are actions defined in the Programme for Action.

(2003/C 222 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE)
and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: France’s illegal ban on the import of British beef

The French government is reported to be considering lifting its illegal ban on British beef. This ban has
been in place for over two years. Does the Commission plan to impose a fine on France even if the ban is
lifted, and, if so, will it be retrospective?

Can the Commission confirm that if the Commission fails to impose a penalty on France the British
government is entitled under the European Treaties to petition the Court of Justice for redress?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State fails to take the necessary measures to comply with
a judgment of the Court of Justice within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the Commission
may again bring the case before the Court. In the second case the Commission specifies the amount of
lump sum or penalty payment which it considers should be imposed on the Member State in default. If the
Court in its judgment in the Article 228 proceedings finds that the Member State has not complied with its
ruling in the original case it may impose a lump sum or penalty. This may not necessarily correspond with
the proposal of the Commission.