WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/04 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. River Ebro water transfer.
Date: 2004-02-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental impact, hydraulic works, impact study

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/695

As a percentage of GNI, how does the UK’s national budget for overseas development aid compare to that
of the other 14 Member States and of the 10 accession states?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

In 2002, the EU total contribution for official development aid was USD 29 949 million, equal to 0,365 %
of Gross National Income (GNI). The USA total contribution for official aid was USD 13 290 million, equal
to 0,13 % of GNI. Those two ratios are respectively above and below the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development/Development Cooperation Directorate (OECD/DAC) average which is at
0,23 % of GNI (with an exchange rate EUR/USD of 1,28).

The budget managed by the European Community accounted for EUR 6 962 million in 2002 and was
included by the Member States in their statistics on the basis of their contribution keys for the budget and
the European Development Fund.

The ranking of the Member States in % of GNI for 2002 was:

1. Denmark 0,96 %;

2.

Sweden 0,83 %;

3. Netherlands 0,81 %;

4.

Luxemburg 0,77 %;

5. Belgium 0,43 %;

6.

7.

8.

Ireland 0,40 %;

France 0,38 %;

Finland 0,35 %;

9. United Kingdom 0,31 %;

10. Germany 0,27 %;

10. Portugal 0,27 %;

12. Austria 0,26 %;

12. Spain 0,26 %;

14. Greece 0,21 %;

15. Italy 0,20 %.

The ten Acceding countries have collectively an average ratio of official development assistance (ODA) /
GNI at about 0,03 % of their GNI.

(2004/C 88 E/0714)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/04

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 February 2004)

Subject: River Ebro water transfer

In view of the recent news that Brussels confirms that Spain has not correctly applied the Directive
demanding that the environmental impact of specific projects be assessed before they are approved, by

C 88 E/696

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Justice in connection with this incorrect application,

guaranteeing prior consultation, and given that the Commission has brought the relevant charges before
the EU Court of
in the case of a regulation
implemented in processing the Ebro water transfer as part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan, will
the Commission tell me to what extent the Spanish Government’s failure to meet the requirements could
affect the implementation of the National Hydrological Plan, since Spanish Environment Ministry sources
have stated that ‘even if the court were to say that we have to change this aspect of the law, this would not
invalidate the decisions taken’?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 March 2004)

As the Honourable Member rightly states, the Commission recently decided to bring an action against
Spain before the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance with Article 226 of the EC
Treaty, for incorrect transposition into Spanish law of certain provisions of Council Directive 85/337/EEC
of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2).

However, it should be noted that this decision was taken within the context of infringement proceedings
initiated by the Commission to examine the conformity of Spanish legislation transposing Directive 97/11/
EC. These are general proceedings unrelated to any specific case, such as the one mentioned by the
Honourable Member. The decision stems from complaints that the transitional arrangements provided for
in Directive 97/11/CE and the obligations arising from Articles 3 and 9 were not being met and had not
been clearly incorporated into Spanish law.

The infringement proceedings do not necessarily mean that the Directive on environmental
impact
assessment is still being applied incorrectly in Spain. Any consequences for specific projects would have to
be determined through a case-by-case examination of the procedure followed.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 88 E/0715)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0409/04

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Rights inherent in European citizenship

The Treaty of Amsterdam further rounded out the definition of European citizenship, by adding that it did
not replace but supplement national citizenship; at the same time, the Treaty consolidated the rights
arising form European citizenship.

Consequently, with the Charter of Fundamental Rights promulgated in Nice in 2000, a single text brought
together all the personal, civic and political rights, as well as the economic and social rights, which
European citizens are guaranteed to enjoy.

Amongst these is the right to vote or stand in elections to the EP, or in local elections in one’s country of
residence within the EU.

I was therefore extremely surprised to learn, from a letter sent by the International Secretary of the Maltese
Nationalist Party, Dr Jason Azzopardi, of the worrying fact that hundreds of Maltese citizens are having
their rights infringed, by being refused the right of voting in the forthcoming June elections to the
European Parliament, because they are temporarily residing outside their own country, for purposes of
work, training or study.