WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Inclusion of specific data in the state aid proceedings relating to the Spanish electricity sector.
20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/125 also reported good cooperation with the ICRC concerning access to detention centres and their willingness to continue such cooperation. Finally, they expressed readiness to receive legal assistance and expertise from the EU with a view to the ratification and implementation of the UN Covenants. (2000/C 170 E/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1923/99 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Responding to parliamentary questions How long, on average, has it taken the Commission to respond to non-priority written questions 1. tabled by MEPS over the last year? 2. How comparable is this to similar procedures within the parliaments of the Member States? 3. What proposals does the Commission intend to put forward with a view to reducing the time taken to answer such questions? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (4 November 1999) The Commission gave 3 013 answers to non-priority questions forwarded by the Parliament in 1998, 1. taking on average six weeks and four days for each of these answers. 2. The Commission does not possess information about questions asked in Member Statesí parliaments. It may, however, be observed that the situations of the Commission and national administrations are not really similar, given in particular the need for coordination between Commission services, the adoption procedure ensuring collegiate responsibility, and the requirement to answer in the language of the author of the question. In the context of the nomination of the new Commission, the Vice-President responsible for relations 3. with the Parliament indicated her clear intention to speed up answers to parliamentary questions. Since then changes have been made to the Commissionís internal procedures which should result in a real reduction in the average reply time. The Commission agrees however that it should be possible to answer all written questions within the six week period identified in Parliamentís procedures, and it will continue to tighten up its procedures to achieve this. (2000/C 170 E/149) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/99 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Inclusion of specific data in the state aid proceedings relating to the Spanish electricity sector In its answer to the Socialist MP Juan Manuel Eguiagaray on 17 September 1999, in the Chamber of Deputies, the Spanish government stated that, in its opinion, the sixth transitional provision of Electricity Sector Law on costs of transition to competition (CTCs) for Spanish electrical companies does not, with respect to the wording of Regulation 50/1998, ácontain any element of state aid within the meaning of Article 92 (1) of the EC Treaty. í C 170 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 The Government further claims that it has forwarded the information requested by the Commission and that negotiations on calculating the amount of the CTCs are proceeding, yet fully admits that during these talks, áthe concept of CTCs is not discussed. í In the light of these surprising remarks, I would ask whether: ü the Commission agrees with the Spanish governmentís criterion whereby CTCs do not constitute a state aid? ü had the Spanish government submitted, by 17 September 1999, all the information requested by the Commission? Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission (19 November 1999) As the Commission has already had occasion to point out to the Spanish Government, its preliminary assessment is that ácosts of transition to competitioní or CTCs do indeed constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) (formerly Article 92(1)) of the EC Treaty. As a result, the case has been entered in the register of non-notified aid, and points 2. 2. 3 and 3. 2 of the Decision of 8 July 1999 concerning the application for a transitional regime submitted by Spain under Article 24 of Parliament and Council Directive 96/0092/EC of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity (1) stipulate that CTCs must be examined in the light of the competition rules, and in particular Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. However, this is a preliminary assessment; the Commissionís definitive view will be confirmed in its final decision. The Commission is in regular contact with the Spanish authorities on CTCs. On 17 September 1999 it had not received all the information necessary to adopt a decision on the case. (1) OJ L 27, 30. 1. 1997. (2000/C 170 E/150) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/99 by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (4 November 1999) Subject: Shortcomings in the Casa de Campoí improvement project in Madrid On 31 March, 20 November 1997 and, more recently, 1 October 1999, the civic association Save the Casa de Campoí wrote to DG XVI of the Commission setting out the numerous shortcomings that, in their opinion, were affecting the implementation of project 95. 11. 61. 021-E relating to the ádevelopment of degraded areas and general improvements to the environment of the Casa de Campo parkí, financed by the Cohesion Funds and carried out by Madrid city councilís environmental department. In particular, the two much trumpeted dams in the Meaques river built in the first phase of the project; these simply turned into foul-smelling stagnant ponds producing hordes of mosquitoes, quite contrary to their initial purpose, as provided for in the project, namely keeping the watercourse biologically clean. These two dams were later destroyed. Furthermore, on 28 February 1998, the Madrid city council approved the Second Integrated Improvement of Madrid Scheme, also financed by the Cohesion Fund, which included various plans relating to the conditioning of the Meaques river, at a cost of 388 million pesetas, and the construction of four more dams