WRITTEN QUESTION P-3220/02 by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Viability of the construction of a new airport at Corvera (Murcia, Spain).
Date: 2002-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Region of Murcia, air transport, airport, common transport policy, competence of the Member States, transport infrastructure

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/53

is remarkable that 500 000 people a year can be allowed in illegally for purposes of sexual exploitation but
that it is quite impossible to invite three people to talk about the same phenomenon.

Do I need to contact a trafficker in order to invite Russian citizens to the European Parliament? And why
does the Schengen agreement not apply to them?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that it is no part of its function to comment on
individual cases involving the processing of visa applications by Member States’ representations in third
countries.

Member States bound by the relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis decide case by case whether to
grant individual short-stay visas,
in accordance with the rules of the Schengen Convention and the
Common Consular Instructions. Under those rules, the representation responsible in the third country is
always that of the Member State in whose territory the main purpose of the visit is to be fulfilled. Persons
granted such a visa may move freely during its period of validity within the territories of all the Member
States which apply the Schengen Convention in full, unless it is a ‘visa with limited territorial validity’.

(2003/C 222 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3220/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 November 2002)

Subject: Viability of the construction of a new airport at Corvera (Murcia, Spain)

Recent press reports state that the Spanish government intends to build the above new regional airport,
following the approval by the Interministerial Committee for Defence and Transport of a report favouring
its construction, which, it is claimed, will meet the alleged need for new facilities to handle large numbers
of tourists.

Is the Commission aware of these developments?

Does the Commission not consider this new scheme to be contrary to the recommendation made in the
white paper on European transport policy for 2010 (1) that the construction of new airports should be
suspended?

Does the Commission not consider that Spain’s airports already have excess capacity, and that this
circumstance casts doubt on the viability of any fresh projects?

(1) COM(2001) 370.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2002)

The Spanish authorities have not officially informed the Commission about their intentions with regard to
the construction of a new airport in the region of Murcia, and are under no obligation to do so.

On the basis of general
developments in this respect.

information publicly available,

the Commission is aware of

the recent

The Commission does not consider that the possibility of the project in question would go against the
policy advocated by the Commission in its ‘White Paper on European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide (1)’.

C 222 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The White Paper does not recommend to limit or restrict the construction of new airports. Instead, it
clearly states that ‘Europe will not be able to cope without new airport infrastructure, including in the
candidate countries (…)’.

The Commission believes that it is primarily the responsibility of Member States to assess whether or not
capacity requirements exist, which may or may not point at the desirability to build additional airport
infrastructure. The Commission has no direct competence in such matters.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 222 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3236/02

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Budget

1. Where is income from fines imposed on companies for infringements of internal market legislation
entered in the budget?

2. Who administers the accounts under which those sums are entered?

3. What sums has the Commission received each year since 1990 in the form of fines imposed on
companies for infringements of internal market legislation?

4. What sums has the Commission transferred, each year since 1990, from accounts under which
income from fines imposed on companies for infringements of internal market legislation has been
entered, to other accounts?

As of 1 November 2002, what is the total amount entered in accounts in respect of income in the

5.
form of fines imposed on companies for infringements of internal market legislation?

6. What is the legal basis for these accounts, receipts and disbursements?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2003)

1. Where fines imposed on firms that have infringed the competition rules are paid definitively, the
receipts are entered in Article R 710 of the general budget.

Fines that have been appealed by the firms concerned in the competent court have to be guaranteed either
by a provisional payment, which is entered in a cash account, or by a bank guarantee.

As far as the budget and accounts are concerned,

2.
authorising officer and draws up the recovery orders for the firms concerned.

the Competition Directorate-General

is the

On the financial side, fines have to be paid into a Commission account at a commercial bank which has
been selected by public tender. The account is managed by the Accounting Officer’s department.

3.

The amounts of the fines definitively collected are given below:

Financial year

Revenue and expenditure account and balance sheet

1990

1991

1992

Volume II-Section III

Volume II-Section III

Volume II-Section III

(In EUR)

Page

116

(cid:1)

131

Article

Total receipts for financial year

710

710

710

593 608,86

18 680 761,20

34 526 287,95