C 222 E/24 Official Journal of the European Union EN 18.9.2003

Another project, Xerta-Senia, has also recently been submitted to public consultation by the Catalonian Regional Government. Its route coincides with the southern stretch of the proposed transfer.

With these proposed projects, the Spanish Government and the Regional Government of infringe not only EU Environmental laws which protect the Ebro Delta (Habitats, Wild Birds, Water Framework Directives), but also the EU Structural Funds legislation as these projects are in reality part of a major project, the Ebro transfer, and therefore need an overall environmental impact assessment (cf Article 26, Structural Funds Regulation).

In view of Commissioner Barnier’s clearly stated views on the need for structural funds projects to comply with environmental legislation (cf. Letter to Guardian newspaper, 31 July 2002), what is the Commission’s position as regards the potential impacts on the local environment of the ‘-Barcelona’ and the ‘Xerta-Senia’ projects and of any future parts of the Ebro Transfer submitted before the overall EIA of the transfer is elaborated?

Will the Commission request that the overall environmental assessment of the Ebro Transfer, including the dams in the Pyrenees, is finalised before any decision on EU funding is taken?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The Commission has not yet received any application for aid from the Structural or Cohesion Funds for the project indicated by the Honourable Member. The provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/ 1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (1) and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (2) are such that any Commission decision on part-financing of water projects in the Member States from these financial instruments requires compliance with Community environment law, including the provisions on environmental impact studies.

The Commission is engaged in ongoing dialogue with the Spanish authorities on the potential environmental impact of the Spanish national water plan in general and the Ebro transfer in particular. It has been working closely with them on implementation of the relevant Community legislation dealing with habitats, environmental impact assessment and water protection. Last January the Spanish authorities voluntarily produced a provisional strategic environmental assessment of the Ebro transfer, and they have also pledged to undertake environmental impact assessments for the entire Ebro transfer plus the transfers to the various river basins in southern . Under the Community legislation individual projects (dams, aqueducts, tunnels etc.) will also be subject to impact assessments. In taking any decisions to support projects in connection with the Ebro transfer from the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund the Commission will of course take account of the various environmental impact assessments to be carried out by the Spanish authorities.

(1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994. (2) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 222 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/02 by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 October 2002)

Subject: Absence of any annual report on the action programme to combat Aids

The action programme to combat Aids was adopted on 21 February 2001. In February 2002 at a consultation meeting with the DG for Trade, NGOs were promised that a separate annual report on the first year of the action programme would be presented shortly. 18.9.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 222 E/25

This annual report is still not available and there are rumours that the action programme is merely to be included in the European Commission’s general annual report.

1. Will the European Commission honour its promise to report separately on this action programme?

2. If not, why did it promise to do so earlier?

3. How does the European Commission define the word ‘shortly’?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 2002)

The Commission is currently finalising an extensive analysis of the Programme for Action, 18 months after its adoption. As the Programme for Action entails a series of new and important policy, programming and implementation initiatives, reporting will indeed be done this time separately from the Annual Report on the Development Policy.

The report is expected to be adopted in January 2003. The Commission will therefore keep its promise.

Reporting has been delayed mainly due to the Commission investing time and resources in the Global Fund to fight human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), tuberculosis (TB) and malaria, the follow-up to the Doha Declaration on Public Health and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), the establishment of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Platform, the discussions in Parliament and Council on the Regulation for a special budget line for the Programme for Action, all of which are actions defined in the Programme for Action.

(2003/C 222 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2871/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Neil Parish (PPE-DE) and Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 October 2002)

Subject: France’s illegal ban on the import of British beef

The French government is reported to be considering lifting its illegal ban on British beef. This ban has been in place for over two years. Does the Commission plan to impose a fine on France even if the ban is lifted, and, if so, will it be retrospective?

Can the Commission confirm that if the Commission fails to impose a penalty on France the British government is entitled under the European Treaties to petition the Court of Justice for redress?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Under Article 228 of the EC Treaty, if a Member State fails to take the necessary measures to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice within the time-limit laid down by the Commission, the Commission may again bring the case before the Court. In the second case the Commission specifies the amount of lump sum or penalty payment which it considers should be imposed on the Member State in default. If the Court in its judgment in the Article 228 proceedings finds that the Member State has not complied with its ruling in the original case it may impose a lump sum or penalty. This may not necessarily correspond with the proposal of the Commission.