WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/02 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Spanish National Hydrological Plan: Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion.
Date: 2002-11-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Spain, environmental impact, impact study, water management in agriculture, water protection

C 84 E/706

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

However, it must also be acknowledged that looking at individual Member States, some are now close to,
or have even surpassed, the 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP) deficit reference value and have not yet
achieved the ‘close to balance or in surplus’ goal of the SGP. The Council has addressed a recommendation
to Portugal under the excessive deficit procedure (EDP) and the Commission has launched the EDP for
Germany. The Commission has also recommended to the Council to issue an early warning to France. This
indicates that the rule based fiscal policy framework (EDP + SGP) operates as intended.

Achieving and maintaining a close to balance budgetary position creates the necessary room for the
automatic stabilisers to play fully, it also provides room to cope with the possible budgetary impact of
reforms aiming at enhancing growth and employment.

Overall, it is the opinion of the Commission that the design of the budgetary rule based framework is
appropriate but that efforts can be made to improve its implementation. The Commission will come
forward with a Communication before the end of 2002 on this issue.

(2004/C 84 E/0792)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3201/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2002)

Subject: Spanish National Hydrological Plan: Júcar-Vinalopó interbasin diversion

The decision to divert water from the Júcar basin to the Vinalopó basin in the Alicantí-Marína Baja area
(Alicante) was adopted on 29 August 1998 and now forms part of Annex 2 to the Spanish National
Hydrological Plan. Under this project, 80 hm3 of water would be diverted each year, with 55 hm3 being
used for crop irrigation to achieve the official objective of aquifer regeneration. The water would be
diverted between different basins within the same administrative area.

According to local environmental experts, the project proposal overestimates the actual volume of water
that the Júcar can provide, which is a sign either of ignorance of the river’s hydrology or of incorrect data.
It fails to take into account the hydrological records for 1994-1995, which showed a diversion to be
impossible, especially if the flow rate decreases in line with climate change forecasts.

The experts consider the environmental impact study on the diversion to be inaccurate and incomplete.
The study does not cover the economic impact on irrigated areas or on the fertile Júcar plain. Neither does
it mention the Roman and Bronze Age remains that will be put in jeopardy. Only part of this study was
made public, in contravention of Directive 90/313/EEC (1) on freedom of access to information on the
environment.

If the Commission is considering a request for cofinancing for this project, could it indicate whether it has
received a report from the Spanish Government on the way that the project will affect the Natura 2000
network? Is the Commission aware that the project affects at least six sites of Community importance in
the Autonomous Community of Valencia? Does the Commission consider these effects to be compatible
with possible European financing of this project?

(1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The decision to divert water from the Júcar basin to the Vinalopó basin in the Autonomous Community of
Valencia in Spain has been the subject of several written questions from the Honourable Member.

In its answers to these written questions, the Commission has had the opportunity to inform the
Honourable Member of the steps which it has taken as part of an investigation of a complaint received
about this project and its possible impact on the environment.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/707

The Honourable Member should refer to the answer which the Commission gave to her written questions
E-1549/02 and E-1550/02 (1) on this subject. In any case, it should be noted that the investigation is still
open in order to examine the latest information provided by the complainants and to check that the
applicable Community environment legislation is being respected in this individual case.

With regard to the possible Community funding of this project, the Honourable Member should refer to
the recent answer to her oral question H-0678/02 during question time at Parliament’s October 2002 (2)
part-session which was also on this subject.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 176.
(2) Written answer of 22.10.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0793)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3821/02

by Elena Paciotti (PSE) to the Commission

(20 December 2002)

Subject: Violation of asylum rights in the EU

On 28 November 2002 the Italian authorities repatriated Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family, from
Malpensa airport (Milan) to Syria, despite the existence of a death sentence against him in that country.
This act was in breach of the Italian Constitution.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union states that ‘no-one shall be condemned to the
death penalty, or executed’ (Article 2), and also underwrites the right of asylum on the basis of the Geneva
Convention and the protocol of 31 January 1967 (Article 18). Meanwhile, negotiations are currently in
course between the EU and Syria for an association agreement.

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to intervene as a matter of urgency so as to ensure that the
death sentence is not carried out and that the physical integrity of Mr Muhammad al Shari and his family
is not put at risk?

(2004/C 84 E/0794)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3826/02

by Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Expulsion from Italy of the Al-Shari family

(20 December 2002)

The Italian police have now handed over to the Syrian police the engineer Muhammad Al-Shari (who was
sentenced to death some years ago in Syria on the grounds of being a member of
the Muslim
Brotherhood), together with his wife and four children, after holding them in detention for five days at
Malpensa airport
(Milan), during which time they were not allowed contact with third persons,
in circumstances amounting to a deliberate breach of the international conventions on asylum and the
much-lauded Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Al-Shari family had arrived from
Iraq, and at the very least they should have been ‘sent back’ to that country. Instead, they were handed
back to the Syrian dictatorship.

The author of this question hereby declares his intention to take this case to the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg, and meanwhile asks the Commission to ascertain whether the death sentence
decreed against Muhammad Al-Shari in Syria has been carried out or not, to state what action it will take
with a view to safeguarding the physical
integrity of the Al-Shari family, and to call on the Italian
government to abide by its international commitments.