WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Spain, amortisation, hydraulic works, public expenditure

C 78 E/316

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The context of this provision clarifies that the objective pursued by this destruction of the animal
subsequent to its slaughtering is to ensure that its meat will not enter the food chain, and it can therefore
be construed to require that a horse, doped by injection with the hormone nandrolone, should be
immediately sent to a designated slaughterhouse or knacker’s yard, whenever additional official control
mechanisms are not available to the Competent Authority for securing this public health objective.

Such additional control mechanisms include the identification of registered horses as provided for by
Decisions 93/623/EEC (4) and 2000/68/EC.

(1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.
(2) Directive 2003/74/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 amending Council Directive 96/
22/EC concerning the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances having a hormonal or
thyrostatic action and of beta-agonists, OJ L 262, 14.10.2003.

(3) Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in
live animals and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC
and 91/664/EEC, OJ L 125, 23.5.1996.

(4) OJ L 298, 3.12.1993.
(5) 2000/68/EC: Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 amending Commission Decision 93/623/EEC and

establishing the identification of equidae for breeding and production, OJ L 23, 28.1.2000.

(2004/C 78 E/0317)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3764/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Spanish Hydrological Plan: cost of water transferred, and the recovery of funding

The Commission is aware the Spanish Government is devoting a significant part of the Community
funding it receives to co-funding water regulation schemes. Spanish legislation demands that
those
benefiting from publicly funded water schemes meet a set of regulations designed to compensate for the
costs of public investment (Article 114 of Royal Legislative Decree of 20 July 2001, No 1/2001, adopting
the revised text of the Law on Water, Spanish Official Journal 24.7.2002). Recently, the chairman of the
Júcar Hydrographical Confederation, José María González Ortea, said that those using the new water
infrastructure should not be responsible for bringing back the European funding allocated to water
schemes of Community interest (Provincias, 13.11.2003).

Having regard to Community law, and particularly the obligation to maintain transparency in managing
and applying European funds (recitals 26 and 57, and Articles 17 to 19, 34, 36 and 46 of Regulation
1260/1991 (1)), the ban on distorting competition within the internal market by means of state aids
(Article 87 of the EC Treaty), the protection of the Community’s financial interests (Article 280 of the EC
Treaty), and the obligation to take account of the principle of recovering costs of water-related services
(Article 9 of Directive 2000/60/EC (2)), does the Commission believe that the Spanish Government should
provide clear and specific precise information on the following points when requesting Community
funding for a water regulation project:

(cid:1) who are to be the beneficiaries and destinees of the regulated water?

(cid:1) how are these beneficiaries going to contribute to recovering the costs of public investment?

(cid:1) is different treatment to be given to recovering public funds contributed by the state and those

contributed by the Community?

(cid:1) is it going to exonerate the beneficiaries in some way from contributing to the recovery of

Community funding?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/317

Specifically, with regard to the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer scheme, does the Commission believe that it
has been provided with sufficient information for it to determine who are the beneficiaries of the work
concerned, whether they will be able to contribute to the recovery of
the costs, and whether all
beneficiaries, or a group of beneficiaries, are going to be exonerated from contributing to this recovery of
costs?

Has the Spanish Government informed the Commission of its intention of exonerating, in any way, all or
some of the beneficiaries from contributing to the recovery of costs?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 February 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 78 E/0318)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3765/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Carrara municipality

In response to my previous question E-1063/03 (1) asking whether the Carrara municipality had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003
that Carrara had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were
submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

(2004/C 78 E/0319)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3766/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Florence municipality

In response to my previous question E-1064/03 (1) asking whether the Florence municipality had
submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on
8 May 2003 that Florence had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were
submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.