WRITTEN QUESTION P-3568/03 by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Draft Constitution no solution to the EU's lack of democratic legitimacy.
Date: 2003-11-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Constitution, European Parliament, European Union, European identity, democratic deficit, division of powers, image, institutional structure, national parliament, supranationality

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/593

the various mobile operators active in each Member State propose to their subscribers. Should specific
problems of consumer awareness arise in a particular Member State, the Commission believes that the
relevant National Regulatory Authority is in a position to take adequate steps.

(1) Working document on mobile roaming charges, DG Competition, December 2000, which can be found at the
following Web address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/antitrust/others/sector_inquiries/roaming, EEC Coun-
cil: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, OJ P 13, 21.2.1962.
(2) The last survey can be found at the following Web address: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/

regulatory/studies/documents/tariff_report_2002_12.pdf

(3) See page 416.

(2004/C 78 E/0626)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3566/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Refund of budgetary resources

In a communication dated 29 October 2003, the Commission has proposed that unused budgetary
resources from the 2003 Community budget amounting to EUR 5 billion be refunded to the Member
States.

From which actions funded by the budget are these unused resources derived?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Honourable Member is referring to the proposal made by the Commission in the Preliminary Draft
Amending Budget No7 to hand back to the Member States EUR 5 billion in surplus payment
appropriations in heading 2 of the Budget. The surplus appropriations were on the budget lines for the
completion of the pre-2000 Structural Funds programmes.

The Commission’s proposal has now been adopted, as an Amending Budget No 6, by the Budgetary
Authority.

(2004/C 78 E/0627)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3568/03

by Herman Schmid (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject: Draft Constitution no solution to the EU’s lack of democratic legitimacy

According to one view, the democratic deficit in the EU consists in the fact that more and more decisions
are taken at EU level, while the people still identify with the national level of politics. Evidence of this is
provided by the very low turnout for elections to the European Parliament, a pattern which does not look
likely to be broken ahead of subsequent elections. According to this view, the core of the problem is that
there quite simply is no European identity or a single European people. On the basis of this view, several
countries (Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, the UK) have opposed the development of the EU towards a state
(they prefer the EU to remain an organisation which cooperates to resolve practical issues). If the draft
Constitution is adopted, a few more steps will have been taken towards a future state. However, according
to the above view, such a development is a denial of democracy in the EU. As long as the democratic
legitimacy of the European Parliament is low, any strengthening of its power entails a weakening of
democracy and a corresponding weakening of the influence of the national parliaments via the Council of
Ministers. This does not reduce but increases the distance between decision-makers at EU level and the
electorate. It is also defeats the object of establishing a constitution for the EU.

C 78 E/594

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

One example of the European Parliament’s lack of democratic legitimacy at the present time is that, with
very few exceptions, no EU citizen can state the name of any political group in Parliament, let alone what
political tendency it represents. They are unknown to the great majority of the public. When people go to
the polls in European Parliament elections, they look only at national issues. Moreover, Members of the
European Parliament often have to follow a party political programme at EU level which frequently
contradicts the parties’ election manifestos at national level. The most serious aspect of the problem is that
voters who voted for an MEP to represent them are not in a position to know whether they have been
duped. At the present time, it is almost impossible for voters to know what is happening in EU politics.
There is no media coverage etc. The entire situation is a vicious circle which ultimately creates contempt
for politicians.

It is widely understood that the EU suffers from a lack of democratic legitimacy, as described above. In the
light of that fact, how can the Commission endorse the draft of the new Constitution when, by proposing
a strengthening of the European Parliament’s powers, democracy in the EU is weakened? How does the
Commission believe that strengthening the supranational level can win the support of the people when, de
facto, the European people and the European identity required to legitimise its decisions do not exist?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2004)

The Commission does not share the views expressed by the Honourable Member in his question. In
particular it believes that strengthening the powers of Parliament does not weaken democracy within the
Union, but instead would enhance the democratic nature of the Union. Strengthening Parliament’s powers
does not affect the powers of national parliaments; quite the contrary, the draft Constitution will lead to
closer involvement of the national parliaments in the operation of the Union.

(2004/C 78 E/0628)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3571/03

by Gerhard Schmid (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Threat to a water protection zone in one member State by a project in another

A garage is currently being built near the municipality of Pavlùv Studenec in the Czech Republic, and the
construction of a large petrol station is planned as part of this project. On the German side of the border
there is a water protection zone near the municipality of Bärnau, whose springs provide some 60 % of the
population of Bärnau with drinking water. Since the petrol station due to be built on the Czech side is
situated on a hill overlooking the border, the water protection zone is at risk from pollution in the event
of leaks of hazardous substances on the Czech side. Nevertheless, the Czech administration intends to
approve the construction of the petrol station.

In view of the above, will the Commission say whether after accession to the European Union the Czech
authorities will be obliged to respect a water protection zone on the German side of the border as part of
water legislation?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Community legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment (1) (EIA) requires that private and public
projects that are likely to have significant effects on the environment must be subject to an assessment of
their potential effects on the environment before they can be allowed to proceed. EIAs are mandatory for
certain projects listed in Annex I of the Directive, but Member States have discretion determining whether
projects of the type listed in Annex II require an EIA, based on selection criteria provided in Annex III.