WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/03 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE),Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (PSE), Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE)and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission. Administrative situation with regard to the Breña II dam.
Date: 2003-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, administrative formalities, engineering structure, hydraulic works, project evaluation, project management, water resources, watercourse

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/159

The PDOs, as industrial and commercial property rights, must be protected against abusive use of the
designations by third parties wishing to profit from the reputation they have acquired. The measures are
balanced and needed to preserve the quality features and characteristics of the products, thus protecting
the reputation of the designations of origin involved.

When examining each application for registration the Commission is especially careful to ensure that
certain provisions in the specifications (cid:1) regarding packaging, for example (cid:1) are in fact balanced and
needed to protect the designation. This analysis ensures that abuses do not arise that would hamper the
free circulation of goods.

The Commission has not noticed disproportionate effects on the internal market. As for the request to
review the provisions of PDO specifications, the Commission has powers to do so only when it has
received a request from the Member State concerned.

(2004/C 51 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/03

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE),
Pedro Aparicio Sánchez (PSE), Juan Izquierdo Collado (PSE)
and Fernando Pérez Royo (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Administrative situation with regard to the Breña II dam

The Guadalquivir basin suffers a serious structural water shortage, which has an enormous adverse socio-
economic impact. The lack of security of supply of water for irrigation leads to loss of investment in
regions such as Andalucia, which is defined as an Objective 1 region by the European Union.

The Breña II dam is not only backed by economic operators and representatives of civil society linked to
the agricultural sector, such as the farmers in the Guadalquivir basin and farmers’ organisations (ASAJA,
COAG and UPA), but also by workers’ trade unions (CC.OO. and UGT), consumers (UCE-UCA), provincial
councils in the region (Cordoba, Granada, Jaen and Seville), the Andalucian regional government, the
Spanish government itself and the Andalucian Parliament.

All this is because the dam, combined with the current policy of modernising irrigated land and improving
the use and management of the scarce water resources available, is the only way of remedying the water
shortage in the Guadalquivir basin.

In November 2001 the Spanish Government forwarded to the Commission, in accordance with Council
Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of natural habitats, the project for the Breña II dam and the
plans for compensation and corrective measures, as well as justification for the reasons of overriding
public interest making the dam necessary.

As the Commission well knows, the dam in question not only has the support and approval of the
environmental authorities of the Spanish Government and the Andalucian regional government, but also
the lobby group for the protection of the Iberian lynx, which means that only the European Union’s
approval is lacking.

In view of the above and the delay in settling this issue, can the Commission say why it has not yet given
its final approval for the execution of this water supply project of vital importance for Andalucia? What
conditions has the Spanish Government not yet fulfilled? When does the Commission envisage settling the
issue once and for all?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

C 51 E/160

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the Breña II dam for the economic and social development
of the Andalucia region in addressing the water shortage as well as contributing to overall hydraulic
regulation within the Guadalquivir river basin.

The Project, which involves a total eligible cost of EUR 159 757 001 was presented to the Commission
Directorate General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO) on 5 October 2001. The Spanish Authorities asked
for financing 50 % of the cost through Regional funds. DG REGIO sent the project to the Directorate
General for the Environment (DG ENV) on 12 October 2001, and additional information was also sent on
16 April 2002. Since then, exchanges of information and several discussions have taken place between DG
REGIO, DG ENV and the Spanish Authorities in order to develop and understand some technical and
management issues in need of clarification.

In addition, the Commission would like to underline that the Spanish Authorities have asked the opinion
of
the Commission under Article 6.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Finally, the Commission is completing the analysis of all the information that has been received in order to
ensure that Community environmental
the
Commission intends to finalise its assessment and to give a reply to the Spanish Authorities.

legislation is properly applied. Within the near future,

(2004/C 51 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1924/03

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of the agreement signed by Switzerland and the EU on 21 June 1999 on the transport of

goods and passengers

The Swiss Federal Council established, by decree of 20 September 2002, a preferential treatment scheme
for part of domestic HGV traffic. Thanks to these rules, Swiss vehicles travelling to or from southern
Switzerland with a special authorisation and a yellow ‘S’ sign on a red background can avoid the St
Gotthard and St Bernard stopping areas (compulsory for all vehicles) and gain direct access to the tunnel,
thereby considerably reducing waiting time. Moreover, these vehicles are not required to comply with the
alternate one-way system in the St Bernard tunnel (as if safety problems did not apply to them).

Swiss drivers can in fact take advantage of this preferential treatment with regard not only to domestic
travel, but also (cid:1) in most cases (cid:1) to travel to Italy and northern Europe since there is no actual check on
the destination of the goods. In other words, Swiss hauliers travelling to Italy can save an average of 4-8
hours on each journey and plan their work programme in excellent conditions while respecting delivery
times. Moreover, EU road hauliers wishing to deliver goods to southern Switzerland cannot possibly
compete with local carriers since they do not enjoy the same advantages.

Does the Commission not consider that this decree is contrary to the EU-Switzerland agreement of
21 June 1999 (1) on the transport of goods and passengers,
in particular Article 32 thereof, which
prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of the carrier’s nationality, the vehicle’s place of
registration or destination?

(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 91.