WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. International child abduction.
8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/25 (2000/C 225 E/026) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1824/99 by Camilo Nogueira RomÆn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (12 October 1999) Subject: Breaches of environmental and safety legislation by the river Umia dam scheme in Galicia On an initial pretext of needing to provide water for the SalnØs district in Galicia, the Galician Fovernment claim that there was an urgent need to build a dam on the river Umia, which was in fact quite fraudulently intended to supply hydro electric power. The obligatory study of the impact of the scheme both on the environment and on the safety of the local population was not carried out, although the scheme could destroy a substantial part of the areaís cultural and natural heritage and its tourist potential. The scheme was rejected by an overwhelming majority of those affected (who were even subject to police violence during peaceful demonstrations), and negative assessments were returned by the Galician ombudsman; the scheme was condemned by the Galician High Court, which ordered building operations to cease forthwith and for the land concerned to be returned to its owners. The Galician government quite illegally ignored this ruling. Is the Commission going to take the requisite and economic steps to ensure that the Galician Government ceases its building work on the Umia dam and restores the status quo ante, so as to prevent the grave prejudice which will otherwise be caused to the local population? Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (10 December 1999) The Honourable Memberís question concerns a dam project on the River Umia close to the village of Caldas de Reis in Galicia. The Honourable Member has already lodged a petition regarding the project (No 79/98). In its examination of the petition, the Commission is attempting to clarify the situation as reported, including the alleged misapplication 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), as amended by Directive 97/11/ EC, and of Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (2). This detailed examination ü particularly necessary inasmuch as the project is part of the Autonomous Community of Galiciaís operational programme, which receives funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) ü is not yet complete. The Commission will not fail to keep the Honourable Member informed of further developments in this matter within Parliamentís Committee on Petitions. (1) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985. (2) OJ L 206, 22. 7. 1992. (2000/C 225 E/027) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/99 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission (11 October 1999) Subject: International child abduction in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements joint children (COM(1999) 220), which relates to child abduction states that the courts with jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 3 (Parental responsibility) shall exercise their jurisdiction áin conformity with the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductioní. responsibility for C 225 E/26 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 Do Member States currently inform their citizens of the implications and powers of this Hague Convention in, for example, passports or literature relating to living abroad? Will this situation change with the introduction of the proposed Council regulation? Is the Commission aware of Convention? the degree of compliance by Member States with the terms of the Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (5 November 1999) Article 4 of the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children (1) states that the international jurisdiction for which it provides is to be exercised in conformity with the 1980 Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, and in particular Articles 3 and 16 thereof. In other words, an authority or a court of a Member State which is a priori competent by virtue of the spousesí joint child being habitually resident in that Member State (Article 3 of the draft Regulation) may not take measures relating to parental responsibility before a decision under the Hague Convention is taken as to whether the child should be returned or not, if that habitual residence is the consequence of the child being wrongfully removed or retained. The Commission has no information on the steps taken by Member States to inform their nationals of the implications and effects of this Convention. The adoption of the Regulation will create no obligations for the Member States to provide information; the information measures mentioned by the Honourable Member remain within the competence of the Member States. The Commission can, however, indicate that the Hague Conference regularly organises meetings of all the Central Authorities designated to monitor the implementation of the Convention, and seminars intended to raise the awareness of national judges as to how it operates. The Commission is not informed about cases of possible non-compliance with the Convention in question. It would add that the Convention leaves some margin of discretion for the national authorities requested to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained, particularly when the child has become settled in its new environment (Article 12) or if the return of the child would expose it to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation (Article 13). (1) COM(1999) 220 final. (2000/C 225 E/028) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1831/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (13 October 1999) Subject: Allocation of funds for agricultural development for 2000-2006 The Commission has fixed the level of resources to be made available for each Member State for the new taking as the generation of agricultural development programmes for the period from 2000-2006, criterion the average funds approved over the last three years for each Member State. As a result of this distribution system, Greece will receive a mere 3 % of total funds to be made available for agricultural development, despite the fact that agriculture in Greece is particularly disadvantaged owing to the large agricultural population, the small size and family character of agricultural holdings and the particularly low agricultural income. According to the Greek Government, it is the Brussels ábureaucracyí which is responsible for the reduced take-up rate over the last three years, since it has not allowed Greek programmes submitted to be adopted, and as a result the final percentage of funds for Greece has fallen. Will the Commission say: 1. Does it intend to review the allocation of funds, so that this can take place on the basis of the real situation and needs of the agricultural sector in each Member State?