# CE2004078EN.01076901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/769 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/769

---

(2004/C 78 E/0819)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff between the European Parliament's two meeting places

Subject:

| 1. | Is the Commission aware that the train service between Brussels and Strasbourg, which are established by treaty as the European Parliament's two meeting places, operates only a few times a day and that the frequency of the service has recently been cut further so that although there is an hourly service between Brussels and Luxembourg there are very few through trains from Brussels to Luxembourg and Strasbourg? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the Commission aware that the train service between Brussels and Strasbourg, which are established by treaty as the European Parliament's two meeting places, operates only a few times a day and that the frequency of the service has recently been cut further so that although there is an hourly service between Brussels and Luxembourg there are very few through trains from Brussels to Luxembourg and Strasbourg?

| 2. | Is the Commission also aware that the serious shortage of connections has hitherto been offset by special train No 105 for officials and political group staff on Monday mornings during the European Parliament's part-session weeks in Strasbourg, but that this very crowded train stopped running in September 2003? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission also aware that the serious shortage of connections has hitherto been offset by special train No 105 for officials and political group staff on Monday mornings during the European Parliament's part-session weeks in Strasbourg, but that this very crowded train stopped running in September 2003?

| 3. | Is it the intention that passengers who have hitherto used the direct service between the two cities should be diverted onto the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris Nord linking up with the future high-speed rail line between Paris Est and Nancy or onto the high-speed line from Brussels to Liege to link up with high-speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt airport, both of which provide a more frequent service but involve a detour with changes of train and, above all, much longer journey times? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it the intention that passengers who have hitherto used the direct service between the two cities should be diverted onto the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris Nord linking up with the future high-speed rail line between Paris Est and Nancy or onto the high-speed line from Brussels to Liege to link up with high-speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt airport, both of which provide a more frequent service but involve a detour with changes of train and, above all, much longer journey times?

| 4. | Does the Commission share the fear that, as a result of these cuts, the thousands of people who have to travel frequently between Brussels and Strasbourg because of the EU's existence will increasingly have to use means of transport that cause much greater harm to the environment, such as plane and car? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does the Commission share the fear that, as a result of these cuts, the thousands of people who have to travel frequently between Brussels and Strasbourg because of the EU's existence will increasingly have to use means of transport that cause much greater harm to the environment, such as plane and car?

| 5. | As the guardian of the treaties, does the Commission believe it has a role in ensuring and maintaining good connections between the European Parliament's two meeting places as established in 1997 by the treaties? Or does it believe that the market should be given free rein and that train passengers can be lumbered with finding their own solutions to the new problem they face? |
| --- | --- |

5.

As the guardian of the treaties, does the Commission believe it has a role in ensuring and maintaining good connections between the European Parliament's two meeting places as established in 1997 by the treaties? Or does it believe that the market should be given free rein and that train passengers can be lumbered with finding their own solutions to the new problem they face?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

(7 November 2003)

The Commission has taken note of the decision by the Belgian national railway operator to cancel its service from Brussels to Strasbourg, during the plenary sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg. Train 105 (Brussels-Luxembourg) is still in service, but the additional carriages attached to train 105 for the Luxembourg-Strasbourg extension of the journey during the plenary sessions of the Parliament are no longer in service as a result of maintenance works carried out in France between Metz and Strasbourg. This train was, and still is, accessible to all passengers having a valid ticket. The Commission would like to stress that, as already indicated in the replies to previous questions asked by the Honourable Member (1),. according to the provisions of Directive 91/440/EEC (2), railway undertakings shall be managed according to the principles which apply to commercial companies, which have to optimise their yields and to minimise their costs.

1

2

The Commission considers that a further opening of the market for international passenger services by rail will allow railway undertakings to offer new and competitive services, which best satisfy the requirements of the passengers. In this context, the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of its intention to table soon a proposal for the gradual opening up of the market for international passenger services by rail.

In addition, the Commission proposed on 1 October 2003 to consider as a priority project (No 28) of the Trans-European Network the Eurocap Rail, i.e. Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg, which will enable the modernisation of the infrastructure and allow a shorter and more comfortable journey towards 2012 (3).

3

---

(1)  See the replies to Written Questions: E-1699/03, OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 128, E-1720/03 (See page 722), E-1721/03, OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 158 and E-2293/03 (See page 402).

1

(2)  Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community's railways, OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, as amended by Directive 2001/12 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

2

(3)  Amended proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council, amending the amended proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96 EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, COM(2003) 564 final.

3

---