WRITTEN QUESTION E-3871/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Connection between the Ebro water transfer and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer.
Date: 2003-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Spain, hydraulic works, water management

C 78 E/866

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0919)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3863/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(8 December 2003)

Subject: European Evidence Warrant (cid:1) a proposal threatening individual freedom?

The Commission’s recent proposal for a framework decision introducing a European evidence warrant for
gathering evidence in other Member States (1) may constitute a further dangerous and illiberal move
towards a European judicial area outside the control of national parliaments.

The decision contains the same terms as the arrest warrant and goes even farther, since the conviction of a
suspect may be based solely on evidence obtained by the State obliged to comply with the terms of the
warrant and the decision provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such evidence in a
court of law in the country requesting the warrant.

Since only a few Member States have so far adopted the legislation needed to implement the framework
decision on the arrest warrant and in view of
the various criticisms and doubts raised, does the
Commission not consider the submission of this new proposal for a framework decision to be premature?
Does it not consider it should even be withdrawn immediately?

(1) COM(2003) 688 final.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

The Honourable Member’s question concerns in particular the validity in the requesting country of
evidence obtained from another country using a European Evidence Warrant. The Honourable Member
raises the concern that the proposal provides no minimum guarantees regarding the validity of such
evidence.

The Commission’s proposal does not directly address the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained
using a European Evidence Warrant. The extent to which any objects, documents or data obtained by such
warrant are admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings will therefore (cid:1) like any other evidence (cid:1) be
controlled by each country’s courts in accordance with the relevant national law. As a safeguard to help
protect fundamental rights, the proposal provides that the judicial authority issuing the warrant must
certify that the objects, documents or data sought by the warrant are (a) necessary and proportionate for
the proceedings in questions,
(b) could be obtained under the law of the issuing country in similar
circumstances if they were available on the territory of the issuing country, and (c) are likely to be
admissible in the proceedings for which they are sought. In addition, the judicial authority issuing the
warrant can request (cid:1) and in some circumstances require (cid:1) that the warrant be executed in compliance
with certain formalities. This should help ensure that the evidence is obtained in a way that does indeed
meet the requirements of the law of the issuing country.

The Commission therefore does not agree that its proposal for a European Evidence Warrant constitutes a
dangerous and illiberal move as suggested by the Honourable Member. Nor does the Commission agree
with the suggestion that it should withdraw its proposal.

(2004/C 78 E/0920)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3871/03

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

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Connection between the Ebro water transfer and the Júcar-Vinalopó water transfer

The transfer of water from the Ebro to the Spanish south-east involves the building of a canal which, in
the projected section between the River Júcar and the River Vinalopó, will converge with the canal
provided for in the water transfer from the Júcar to the Vinalopó. The Spanish authorities intend to
leave the River Júcar at points scarcely
achieve both transfers by building both channels, which will

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/867

30 4miles apart to converge near Villena. The government has not explained why it has decided to
construct these two adjacent canals virtually simultaneously, with the same purpose of transferring water,
at colossal financial and environmental cost, and furthermore, it has not explained why it wants the EU to
co-fund them. The government cannot justify the existence of sufficient water resources in the Júcar to
carry out this transfer, and the supposed surpluses to be transferred, as shown in the Hydrological Plan of
the Júcar Basin, no longer exist. The declining water resources of the Júcar have fallen even more steeply in
recent years. This means that regular transfer could only comprise a reduced volume of water through the
Júcar-Vinalopó canal if adequate resources were being brought into the Júcar beforehand so as to rebalance
the system in both water flow and quality terms. We should not forget that the studies which the
Commission already has in its possession, in research file 2001/4649 of the National Hydrological Plan,
show that it is more and more doubtful whether the Ebro transfer can in fact meet both requirements. For
that reason, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer project is entirely dependent on the Ebro transfer, of which it
forms an indissoluble part, and would only be viable if the latter were equally viable. But, on the other
hand, if the Ebro transfer were finally implemented, the Júcar-Vinalopó canal would be redundant thanks
to the major Tous-Villena canal, which would mean that there would be no point in building it. From the
standpoint of the rational and efficient use of public funds, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer constitutes a logical
problem which has no solution: without the Ebro transfer it is not viable because it will lack sufficient
water flow, and with the Ebro transfer it is not viable either, because it will be a redundant infrastructure.

Under these circumstances, how can the Commission justify funding this infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

According to official correspondence from the Spanish authorities, there is no linkage between the
proposed Ebro transfer and the Júcar Vinalopó transfer. This means that no water from the Proposed Ebro
transfer will be introduced into the Júcar river. The proposed Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is an independent
project with the water for the transfer to be made available as a result of water savings resulting from
improved irrigation systems. Nevertheless, this fact is independent from the proposed transfer of 315 hm3
of water from the Ebro transfer to the Júcar river hydrological district.

With regard to the possible duplication of the transfer infrastructure, namely the Júcar Vinalopó canal and
Tous-Villena conduction, which is a combination of different sections of canal, pressure pipeline and
tunnels, the latter being part of the infrastructure linked to the proposed Ebro transfer, it would indeed
appear to be the case that
the two canals will be constructed in close proximity to each other.
Nevertheless, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is at a higher level than the Tous-Villena conduction, which
would not allow for the transfer from one conduction to another. In the area in which both conductions
are equi-distant, the Tous-Villena one goes through a tunnel, which makes any connection even more
unlikely. It should be stressed once more that the two transfers are completely independent from each
other, without any plan to link them in the future.

(2004/C 78 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Motorway and high-speed rail routes (cid:1) Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region

Italian Law 443 of 21 December 2001 provides for the development of Corridor 5 by constructing a third
motorway link (Quarto d’Altino (cid:1) Sistiana) and a high-speed rail
link (Ronchi south (cid:1) Trieste).
Accordingly, two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together
with impact assessments which did not, however,
impact
assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of
27 June 2001.

include either the strategic environmental