Príloha č. 4 k Zápisnici

z rokovania vládnych delegácií

konaného v Budapešti 19. decembra 2006

Standpoint of the Hungarian Party

on the identification of European legislative rules applicable in the course of developing the modalities for the implementation of the Judgement of the International Court of Justice at the Hague concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, inter alia on the coordination of tasks relating to the application of the planned technical measures and the Water Framework Directive

1. Introduction

In the course of the negotiations held on the 5^th of October 2006 in Bratislava between the Governmental Delegations of the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic with regard to the implementation of the judgement of the International Court of Justice at the Hague concerning the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, the Parties have agreed among other matters upon the continuation of the consultation on the identification of European legislative rules applicable in the course of developing the modalities for the implementation of the Judgement, inter alia on the coordination of tasks relating to the application of the planned technical measures and the Water Framework Directive.

The Hungarian section of the Legal Experts’ Working Group handed over in June 2005 two studies relating to this issue to the Slovak section¹, one of those dealing with the applicability of the environmental law of the European Community and another one dealing with the applicability of the energy and transport law of the European Community in the resolution of the legal dispute relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project. The two Parties of the Legal Experts’ Working Group have agreed to hand the two studies over to the other two working groups, facilitating in this way the use of these in the course of their work.

The Hungarian Party considers the two studies essential source-books, suitable for demonstrating the role of the environmental law of the European Community in the resolution of the legal dispute relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project, therefore the Hungarian Party has leant on these studies to a significant extent in the course of elaborating the present standpoint. In the present document the Hungarian Party has the intention of shifting from an overall approach formulated in the above mentioned two studies towards rather a specific one.

2. The relevant Community environmental legislation and its application

Environment protection is one of the basic objectives of the European Community. According to Article 2 of the EC Treaty, the “The task of the Community is to […] enhance […] the protection and improvement of the environment on a high level. […]”. A priority position to environmental policy by Article 6 of the EC Treaty is represented by the so-called integration principle, by providing that the environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of all other Community policies and activities. The integration principle features in other – secondary – Community legislation as well (see point (16) in the Water Framework Directive) establishing a clear precedence among competing policies for the benefit of environmental policy.

For the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project it is horizontal legislation, water quality protection and nature conservation rules that are the most relevant areas from among the Community environmental regulations. In addition, with regard to the environmental evaluation of hydro power generation - as a potential source of renewable energy – some points of the climate change acquis may provide indirect guidance.

Horizontal legislation:

• rules concerning prior assessment of the effects of human activities, such as Directive 85/337/EEC on environmental impact assessment and Directive 2001/42/EC on strategic environmental impact assessment;

• rules concerning public participation in environmental matters, such as Directive 2003/4/EC on access to environmental information and Directive 2003/35/EC on the public participation in the drawing up of certain plans and programmes;

• environmental liability as set out in Directive 2004/35/EC.

Water protection:

• Directive 2000/60/EC establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy;

• Directive 98/83/EC on the quality of water intended for human consumption;

• Directive 91/676/EEC on the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources;

• Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban waste water deflecting and treatment;

• Directive 7/160/EEC on the quality of bathing water

• Directive on groundwater adopted by the Council and the Parliament whereof the text is known, but will be published officially presumably only in the first quarter of 2007

Nature conservation: the two directives relevant in the context of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project are those establishing the Natura 2000 network of protected areas:

• Directive 79/409/EEC on the protection of wild birds (“Birds Directive”);

• Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (“Habitats Directive”).

Climate change: Directive 2004/101/EC creating correlation between the Kyoto project mechanisms and Directive 2003/87/EC on the European emission trading scheme provides guidance for the environmental evaluation of hydro power generation.

Along with the Community secondary legistlation it also has to be remembered, that Member States are obliged to also apply international conventions adopted by the Community as Community law. As enforced by the International Court of Justice in the case Commission v. Ireland (C-459/03) in its judgement² on the 30^th of May, 2006, “international conventions adopted by the Community form an integral part of Community law,.....in accordance with the standard judgement practice”. As a consequence, the following conventions inter alia are to be taken into consideration:

• Bio-diversity Convention (Rio de Janeiro, 1992)

• Convention on the protection of migrating birds and wild fauna (Bonn, 1979)

• Convention on the protection and sustainable use of the Danube (Szófia, 1994)

• Convention on the protection and sustainable use of international cross-border and bordering fluvial waters and lakes (Helsinki 1992)

3. Coordination of tasks originating from the implementation of the Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a Community act of crucial importance for the resolution of the legal dispute, since the basic principles of the resolution of the legal dispute has to be defined with due consideration to environmental objectives set by the framework directive, whilst the parameters of technical variants to be taken into account have to match with the environmental parameters designated by the framework directive, whereas the final solution has to be harmonised with the plans for river basin management to be prepared in cooperation with the Slovak experts.

The main goal of Community water protection policy is to protect and enhance water quality. In the interests of that, a (further) deterioration of water status has to be prevented; sustainable, balanced, equitable and reasonable water use has to be favoured, moreover aquatic ecosystems and directly dependent terrestrial and wetland ecosystems have to be protected. [WFD Preamble Sections (19), (26) and (23), Article 1. points (a)-(b)]. Consequently the Water Framework Directive stipulates the definition of environmental objectives covering surface water and groundwater bodies and areas connected with water bodies. It means basically - in the case of surface waters and groundwaters – achieving at least ”good water status”, while in cases of protected areas it means a parallel and integrated fulfilment of the connected protection objectives.

3.1.  Main tasks of river basin management, possible methods and deadlines

As a first step of the Water Framework Directive, the characterization of river basin districts, and therein the provisional designation of heavily modified water bodies has occured already in 2004³. As a result of this, the main riverbed of the Danube between Dunacsún and Szap was qualified as a “heavily modified water body”, the Szigetköz and the Danube section between Szap and the Danube-Ipoly confluence were regarded as a “probably heavily modified water body”. The whole section of the Danube in Hungary under the Danube-Ipoly confluence was regarded as a “natural (not heavily modified) water body”.

Following this, the Member States have to analyse, whether “good water status” can be achieved through adequate measures, moreover whether the actual solution has a technically and economically feasible, environmentally more favourable, alternative. This timetable in practice means that the Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic shall - within the river basin management planning process - jointly or severally, review the interventions necessary for achieving good water status and also give consideration to whether the conjunctive conditions determining its designation as a “heavily modified water body” are extant⁴.

If these conditions prove to be existing in the case of the concrete water body, the water body has to be regarded as heavily modified, otherwise it has to be regarded as being of a natural status. In both cases, however, a system of interventions has to be prepared, as a result of which good ecological status or (in the case of a heavily modified water body) good ecological potential can be achieved.

Concrete interventions at the related sections can be defined only after the definition of environmental objectives. In the case of interventions the environmental compatibility of all forms of utilisations connected to the existing and already operating installations, e.g. energy production, shipping and flood-prevention, moreover that of the facilities and their operation has to be created, with regard to the integration principle formulated in Article 6 of the EC Treaty, under which environmental protection requirements must be integrated into all Community policies.

The standpoint of the Hungarian Party is that the assessment of the possible sorts of interventions alongside the joint sections of the Danube, and particularly in the section between Bratislava and Szap, could be evaluated most effectively and professionally by the Parties in the framework of a comprehensive Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA). Taking into consideration the directives of the European Community, first of all the obligatory planning logic of the Water Framework Directive, the Hungarian Party proposes effectuating the impact assessment with the following content and logical sequence⁵:

1. Assessment of the reference status

For the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive a detailed review of the reference condition has to be made. For impact assessments the processes and the target status have to be underpinned by data, measurements, periodical interim maps etc. effectuated at the reference locations.

2. Assessment of the irreversible changes

There is no common understanding relating to what is to be regarded as reversible in the course of the current restoration. Obviously, the reversibility of human interventions has to be construed within a certain planning horizon, eventually extending to between 50 and 150 years.

3. Assessment of the deficiencies of the present situation

To give a description of the divergence/derogation from the reference status.

4. Limitations through water- and land use obligations

Water- and land-use cases conflicting with restoration have to be treated in accordance with the procedure of the EU Water Framework Directive regarding “heavily modified water bodies”. This inter alia means, that it has to be evidenced through economic assessments, that the realization of environment and water quality objectives applicable to the natural (not heavily modified) water body would cause unreasonably high costs, and that the restoration measures would be of detrimental effect to the environment. In the course of the evaluation of the restraints due attention has to also be paid to the prohibitions of intervention introduced by the Birds and Habitats Directive.

5. Delineation of environmental objectives

The environmental objectives can be delineated as a result of the assessment of the above mentioned four factors, i. e. the reference status, the present (ecological) situation, the irreversible changes as well as the present and future human utilization. The objectives to be set have to be consistent with the objectives defined in the EU Water Framework Directive, i.e. “good ecological status” or “good ecological potential” to be achieved by 2015, and have to meet the requirement of corresponding to every standard and provision relating to protected areas. (WFD Article 4, point (1) c)

6. Delineation and assessment of feasible versions of restoration

Several variants have to be examined according to the Parties jointly agreed upon. It has to be assessed regarding each variant, whether it is technically feasible, what effect it exerts on the environment, and what is the economic consequence of the implementation thereof.

7. Evaluation of the individual variants on the basis of the above defined objectives

Every individual variant has to be evaluated in connection with the environmental objective defined under point 5.

8. Recommendation for the proposed solution

The final evaluation of feasibility should be made take into account numerous aspects, on the basis of which it will be expedient to prepare also a proposal of solution.

In the course of the scheduling of Strategic Impact Assessments due attention has to be paid to the stringent deadlines for the River Basin Management Plan, summarized in short as follows:

22. December 2006: Launching the new monitoring programme providing assessment of waters and protected areas (WFD Article 8.); start of consultations on the timing of River Basin Management Planning, work programme, envisaged implementation method and possible manner of the participation of the public in the process of planning (WFD Article 14 point (a)). This formula naturally applies also for Danube water bodies affected by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project. The Hungarian Party has made the above-mentioned proposal for the methodology thereof. The programme of planning has to be formulated so that the results of the assessment could be built into the complex of river basin management planning units by the set deadline.

22. December 2007: Consultation on the significant water management problems explored with regard to the river basin (WFD Article 14 point (b)). This task covering water bodies affected by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project can be implemented in the most professional way within the above-mentioned Strategic Impact Assessment.

22. December 2008: Consultation on the draft River Basin Management Plan (WFD Article 14 point (c)). This is the final deadline of the closing of the above-mentioned Strategic Impact Assessment, i.e. of building in the action programmes compatible with WFD formulas at the Danube sections affected by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project into national and Danube-river basin-level River Basin Management Plans. Half a year has to be provided for the purpose of consultations, thereafter the plans will need to be revised and further developed during a half-year period, in the interest of making them adoptable by the 22th of December 2009.

22. December 2009: Adoption of the River Basin Management Plan (WFD Article 13., 11.), a document of crucial importance for actions relating to the single river basin-district and contains – among others – the programme of interventions for putting the waters into, and maintaining them, in a good condition, serving as a common designation of all those statutory and administrative measures and concrete implementation steps, which are necessary for the simultaneous fulfillment of environmental objectives and other related Community acts on water quality protection and nature conservation.

22. December 2012: Entering of the action programmes into effect (WFD Article 11). This means, that the master plans for the implementation of the actions have to be prepared before this date at the latest. The River Basin Management Plan has to be approved by the Minister of Environment Protection and Waters, according to the related Hungarian provision. The approval means, that Hungary has to implement the action programmes contained in the plan prior to 2015 preferably jointly with Slovakia.

22. December 2015: Fulfillment of the pre-defined environmental objectives (WFD Article 4), in other words, the work actions, the necessary construction work serving the aim of achieving the environmental objectives, have to be completed not later than before this deadline.

In the case of tasks relating to river basins divided by state frontiers the Water Framework Directive stipulates close cooperation between the Member Countries concerned. Since the implementation of the WFD environmental objectives is not only a bi-lateral question, but a Community task as well (WFD Preamble point (14), in the interests of more efficient cooperation of the Member States the European Commission may take part – at the request of the Member States – in the elaboration of the necessary action programmes. If in connection with the definition of the environmental objectives the Parties fail to be able to enter into agreement, both Hungary and Slovakia can individually turn to the Commission with questions and related suggestions. The Commission has to answer the applicant within a 6 month period (WFD Article 12.)

3. 2.  River Basin Management Planning in the Danube sections affected by the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project

The WFD stipulates in detail, what is meant by good condition of waters. The question of which parameters together with the threshold values to be taken into account, has to be defined by the 22^nd of December, 2006. This will make the reference values important for the determination of the above. The Komárom section of the Danube has been notified by both Slovakia and Hungary as an intercalibration location. The experts of the two countries qualified the Komárom section as suitable for a qualification between the good and medium thresholds. It is to be noted, that Hungary designated also the Szentendre Danube section as an intercalibration location. (The expert working team called into being for implementing the intercalibration has not yet reached a decision in connection with the notification.)

The planning is rendered even more difficult by the fact that it is also necessary to take into consideration actions which are taken to meet various economic and social (flood prevention, shipping, eco-tourism, agriculture, recreation, etc.) targets relating to the relevant Danube water bodies in question. These can be identical to the measures destined to fulfill ecological objectives, but planning of interventions entirely different from those can also be necessary (e.g. the provision of the navigation route at the Danube section under Szap).

The planning is also rendered more difficult by the fact, that the condition of the Danube water bodies in question were, and still today are, severely influenced by the interventions over the whole Danube river basin-area above Hungary which has halved the suspended particles and rolling sediment volume carried by the Danube, resulting thereby in a deepening river bed and decreasing low-water-levels.

3. 2. 1.  River Basin Management Planning at the Danube section between Dunacsún and Szap

The non-adequate condition of the Danube section of Szigetköz is caused mostly by the fact, that less water arrives to the main bed and side-arms of the Danube, than that which would be needed to create a good condition. The definition of water discharge regime corresponding to the optimum compromise needs an assessment of the variants.

The good condition of the water bodies fulfilling the requirements provided by the WFD may be assured through different measures for water discharge regimes of various extents. If in the case of a given water discharge it is possible to create a good ecological condition satisfying WFD norms through different interventions, then the intervention applicable in case of the given water discharge regime has to be selected through cost-benefit-assessment and environment impact analysis. Comprehensive Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA) is the most suitable way for such analysis. Only those versions should be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which prove eligible after the Strategic Impact Assessment. The criteria of acceptability are defined by the WFD.

The good ecological condition stipulated in the WFD, or, in the case of a heavily modified condition a good ecological potential, may be assured through the establishment of water discharge regimes consisting of higher water discharge rates and connected water operations (meandering, bottom level raising, damming, etc.).

The protection capacities of flood prevention regimes meeting the requirements in effect in Hungary need to be guaranteed along the Danube section in question.

3. 2. 2.  River Basin Management Planning along the Danube section between Szap and Budapest

Along this section the Slovak Party is supporting the building of a new dam as an adequate solution for assuring navigation route and energy production corresponding to the original plan. Contrarily, the standpoint of the Hungarian Party is, that there is no legal obligation to set up the second dam envisaged at this section, even though it may cause damage to the environment, the costs rise beyond benefits and is incompatible with European law (see Chapter 4.). If Slovakia insists on the building of the second dam, it should be regarded as a new investment according to the WFD. In this case it has to be evidenced, that the derogation requirements stipulated in the WFD will be accomplished.

It is to be noted, that a navigation route development without a second dam is also to be regarded as a new investment, meaning that the above mentioned rules would also apply to this case.

4. Obligation to act resulting from nature conservation regulations

Community nature conservation regulations are of outstanding importance in the resolution of the legal dispute in the matter of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project investment, since the project complex affects a multitude of Natura 2000 sites regarded by the EU as protected. In connection with Natura 2000 sites the EU law partly imposes wide-ranging obligations of actions, on the other hand it imposes generalized restrictions on Member States’ freedom to carry out physical interventions in the environment.

In the course of the negotiations at expert level the Hungarian Party has handed over the data of the Natura 2000 sites as well as of habitats and species designated for protection⁶.

In the course of the assessment of the Natura 2000 network Hungary ascertained the existence of conditions substantiating the designation in connection with a very wide range of the affected sections. As a result, the list of designations submitted to the Commission covers inter alia:

• the whole section of the Danube in Hungary as an aquatic ecosystem,

• numbers of terrestrial ecosystems to be found in Szigetköz and along the Danube section between Szap and Esztergom;

• the Ipoly-Danube confluence zone;

• a significant part of Szentendre-island.

It is to be emphasised, that the above mentioned sections contain numbers of habitats and species of outstanding importance.

Pursuant to the Directive of the Protection of Habitats the Member State has to take the necessary measures in order to maintain or restore the favourable nature conservation status of these natural habitat sites of Community importance and the favourable protection conditions of the wild flora and fauna.

It is true that the designation of Natura 2000 sites has taken place after the diversion of the Danube, but the protection of species and habitats of Community significance is an obligation of both member countries since the moment of accession, i. e. the month of May of 2004.

A continuation of the investment operations to the detriment of the coherence of Natura 2000 sites and the derogation from the Community nature conservation objectives is an exceptional possibility of derogation, hence the conditions of its application are defined in an itemized way⁷. In the course of the interpretation of the conditions it is imperative to proceed in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice, moreover with the guidelines issued by the Commission⁸.

In addition a part of the Szigetköz is a protected nature conservation site of national significance (Szigetköz Landscape Protection Area), therefore it represents high natural protection values not just from the point of view of the European Union but from a national aspect, too.

4. 1.  Experiences and Messages of the Pannonian Biogeographical Seminar

The Pannonian Biogeographical Seminar took place in Sarród from 27th to 29th September 2005. At the seminar the representatives of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have given accounts on the designation of Natura 2000 sites of the Pannonian region. In the context of the Danube river and the species of fish it contains the following can be established:

In the case of species of fish the European Union represented at the seminar has evaluated the Slovak designation generally incomplete, as a result of that – as far as the Slovak Party could not defend their standpoint, the species of fish basically have been qualified as being of IN MOD⁹ rating.

The Commission expressed its resentment in connection with the Danube sections, that in many cases only the Hungarian side of the Danube has been designated as a Natura 2000 area, while the Slovak side has not. This is questionable only because the Danube basin has been designated by Hungary primarily for fish. The Slovak Party has to designate further areas for inclusion along the sections of the Danube. In this context the Hungarian Party called attention to the fact that also until the deadline stipulated by Slovakia to the Commission in his individual commitment to accomplish replacement of the designations, the impact assessment procedure to be conducted in the case of investments and plans to be implemented at Natura 2000 sites and other investments affecting them, is also compulsory for Slovakia.

4. 2.  The impact assessment procedure applicable at Natura 2000 sites or in cases of investments and plans affecting them¹⁰

Before the adoption or licencing of every plan or investment having a potentially significant impact on any Natura 2000 site and habitat to be found there either in itself or as part of another plan or investment, the developer of the plan or the authorities issuing the permission have to assess the impact of the plan or investment on the species and habitat types which formed the basis for the designation of the area, to be found at the Natura 2000 site.

In this specific case the impacts of any feasibility study, plan and eventually later realized investment relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project to Natura 2000 sites has to be assessed in each and every case. It is to be emphasized repeatedly, that – with regard to the character of the area – it cannot be a matter of debate, that the Natura 2000 area designated for the Hungarian Danube section along the border constitutes a common water body with the other half riverside of the Danube in Slovakia, therefore Slovakia is obliged to implement the procedure even if Slovakia did not designate the given Natura 2000 area on its own side.

The inter-governmental agreement settling the legal dispute relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project is entitled to stipulate the set up of only such technological facilities and objects, the implementation and operating of which does not cause deterioration or significant disturbance of designated Nature 2000 areas or – if it can be of detrimental effect on the nature conservation conditions of species or habitat types serving as a basis for the designation of these areas, - the following conditions are jointly realized:

• the activities serve the public interest,

• other satisfactory alternative solutions were sought, but not found,

• the detrimental effect to the area has to be minimised,

• a proportional compensatory measure indemnifying for the detrimental effect to the conservation of the concerned species and habitat types has to be taken (through restoring and creating habitats),

• in the case of species and habitat types of outstanding importance any plan or investment is allowed to be implemented only in the interests of environmental protection, public health and public safety or following consultation with the Commission.

4. 3.  Further standards intended to protect species of Community level significance

Beyond the assessment of impacts of plans and investments on the coherence of the Nature 2000 network, particularly on the nature conservation conditions of habitat types of Community level significance specified in Annex I of the “Habitats” Directive and Species of Community level significance covered by annex II thereof, moreover in the case of other species of fauna of Community level significance enumerated in annex IV a) of the same, irrespectively of being found at/or outside Natura 2000 areas, Member States have to fulfill further obligations. According to paragraph (1) of Article 12 of the Directive:

“Member States shell take requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in annex IV (a) in their natural range prohibiting:

(…)

(d) deterioration or distraction of breeding sites or resting places”

5. Transport and Energy policies in the European Union

The construction and operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project is potentially affected by several areas of community law. In addition to environment protection and nature conservation transport policy and energy policy are regulated by existing community rules.

5. 1.  Role of European community law connected with river transport in settling the legal dispute relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project.

The Mosel-Rhine and Rhine-Main-Danube navigation routes are two of the thirty projects of European interests and of outstanding significance figuring in annex III of European Parliament and Council level Resolution¹¹ N^o 884/2004/EC adopted on 29th April 2004.

The improvement of the navigability of the Rhine-Main-Danube river route is a Union level objective facilitating the redirecting of heavy traffic from the increasingly crowded highways to waterways.

The development of the trans-European navigation route is primarily the responsability of the Member States, therefore the European Commission - not disposing of any concrete information on the alternative programmes or rather on the individual interventions, leaves the planning and implementation of measures to the Member States with consideration to their mutual internal reconciliation commitment. It means that Community law does not generate any concrete infrastructure development commitment for the individual Member States, whereas according to the integration principle stipulated in Article 6 of the EC Treaty consideration of environmental aspects in the case of developing navigation routes is of obligatory force.

In the interest of substantiating the project aiming at the improvement of the navigability of the Danube – including the section affected by the legal dispute relating to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project – a study is being prepared by the consortium led by VITUKI Kht. The accomplishment of the study is scheduled for 2007.

As a condition of achieving the objectives indicated in the so-called NAIADES programme of the Community an environmental impact assessment is necessary, in accordance with the European Parliament and Council Directive¹² No 2001/42/EC (SEA-directive), as well as the - several times modified - 85/337/EC (EIA-directive) concerning projects¹³. Though both directives are juridical acts applicable at national level, they cover indirect and cumulative effects and stipulate cross-border consultation in cases where the chances are that significant environmental effects exert an influence on the environment of another state as well. As part of these assessments, the Union level environmental juridical acts and particularly the Water Framework Directive have to be respected.

5. 2.  Directive N^o 2001/77/EC on electric energy generated by renewable energy sources¹⁴

The Directive envisages the increase in the proportion of electric power generated by renewable energy sources within overall energy use on the level of the European Union to 22,1% by the year 2010. According to Article 3 of the act the Member States have to set national objectives and fulfill them in the interest of achieving the Community objectives. (The national indicative objectives are contained in the annex of the directive.) The Directive maintains the way of implementation of the indicative objective – i. e. the way in which the proportion of what energy source is used for the fulfillment of the preset objective by the given member state - under Member State competences. It is facilitated in this way that every Member State is able to choose the solution which is the most convenient for its conditions.

Hungary undertook the fulfillment of the 3,6% target value by the year 2010. (at the time of defining the target value the actual national value was around 0,5% ), that will be certainly achieved, i. e. Hungary will certainly meet the requirements set by the Directive.

As a consequence of all the above, the necessity of the construction of a dam cannot be concluded from the energy legislative requirements stipulated by the European Union. The fact, that the European Union supports, and intends to promote, the wider utilization of renewable energy sources, does not mean that the ratio of hydropower at Member State level should be increased without regard to all other aspects and requirements deriving from other law.