32. Recommends that universities and their research centres should take part in or cooperate closely
with regional public-private partnerships as ‘innovation intermediaries ’; considers that this would create a
large synergy effect with better interconnection between the research and innovation activities of universitiesand the needs of individual innovative SMEs and innovative business clusters;
33. Asks for further clarification on how the State aid rules apply to universities and research establish-
ments when they are engaged in economic activities;
34. Questions the appropriateness of allowing State aid to SMEs for hiring highly qualified staff, since
SMEs may have access to specialist knowledge and skills through the services of intermediaries and experts;
35. Is convinced of the need to step up links between businesses and universities, inter alia by increasing
the mobility of highly qualified personnel of all specialities between universities and businesses, particularlySMEs; considers that aid, particularly via support schemes, should encourage such links; welcomes the
Commission's proposal to divide intellectual property rights between the partners (industry and public
research organisations) in research and innovation programmes in accordance with each partner's level ofparticipation, considering that this will give a great boost to the creation of poles of excellence; calls on theCommission, therefore, to submit specific proposals to clarify the legal status of intellectual property inthese circumstances;
36. Believes that clusters develop organically and should therefore be eligible for State aid only on a
temporary basis, during the start-up phase, in order to meet administrative problems and obstacles linkedwith cooperation;
37. Believes that State aid for infrastructure should fulfil the requirement of technical neutrality and open
access, address identified market failures, and enhance innovative potential;
*
**
38. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.
P6_TA(2006)0183
Road safety: bringing eCall to citizens
European Parliament resolution on Road safety: bringing eCall to citizens (2005/2211(INI))
The European Parliament ,
— having regard to the Commission White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide ’
(COM(2001)0370), and its resolution of 12 February 2003 thereon (1),
— having regard to the Commission Communication ‘Information and Communications Technologies for
Safe and Intelligent Vehicles ’(COM(2003)0542),
— having regard to the Commission Communication ‘European Road Safety Action Programme —
Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility ’
(COM(2003)0311) and its publication ‘Saving 20 000 lives on our roads ’of October 2004,
(1) OJ C 43 E, 19.2.2004, p. 250.C 296 E/268 EN 6.12.2006 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 27 April 2006
— having regard to Commission Recommendation 2004/345/EC of 6 April 2004 on enforcement in the
field of road safety (1),
— having regard to the Verona Declaration on Road Safety of 5 December 2003 as well as the conclusions
of the Second Verona meeting of EU transport ministers of 2004 and the subsequent commitmentgiven by those ministers to regard road safety as a priority,
— having regard to the Commission Communication ‘i2010 —A European Information Society for
growth and employment ’(COM(2005)0229),
— having regard to the Commission's 2nd eSafety Communication ‘Bringing eCall to citizens ’(COM(2005)
0431),
— having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,
— having regard to the report of the Committee on Transport and Tourism (A6-0072/2006),
A. whereas, in 2004, 43 000 people died in road accidents in the EU-25 Member States and a pan-Euro-
pean in-vehicle emergency call service/function, eCall, could save up to 2 500 lives a year and bringabout a reduction of up to 15 % in the gravity of injuries,
B. whereas the introduction of the eCall system would reduce the annual external costs of road traffic by
up to EUR 26 billion, thus relieving citizens of a burden of up to EUR 26 billion; whereas effortsshould be made to reduce, not internalise, external costs,
C. whereas the eCall system has the potential to reduce the response time to accidents by approximately
40 % in urban areas and approximately 50 % in rural areas,
D. whereas the eCall system is to be welcomed as the first building block of the intelligent car initiative as
set out in Commission Communication COM(2005)0229,
E. whereas the large-scale roll-out of eCall by 2009 is a priority of the eSafety initiative,F. whereas considerable progress has been made in the field of eSafety technologies, systems and services,
and the development of Galileo also offers potential for the future,
1. Welcomes the fact that, at the 2nd eSafety High Level Meeting with Member States, four Member
States signed the eCall Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), namely, Greece, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia,joining the existing signatories Finland, Sweden and, most recently, Cyprus;
2. Is encouraged by the commitment of other Member States which have already initiated the process for
signing the MoU (the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany) and calls on those whichhave not already done so to demonstrate the political will to do so;
3. Stresses the importance of all Member States signing the MoU as soon as possible, in order to demon-
strate a clear commitment to the implementation of eCall to other stakeholders, if eCall is to be fully rolledout in 2009;
4. Suggests that, having regard to the agreed schedule of the Galileo Programme, it would be preferable if
the roll-out of eCall could be coordinated with the fully operational phase, but that any delay in the intro-duction of Galileo should not obstruct the implementation of eCall;
5. Believes that, in order for real progress to be made, the MoU should be converted into a letter of
intent, signed by all stake holders, as soon as possible;
(1) OJ L 111, 17.4.2004, p. 75.6.12.2006 EN C 296 E/269 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 27 April 2006
6. Urges the authorities of the Member States, therefore, to include information about eCall in the
material for their public road safety campaigns;
7. Welcomes the motor industry's unambiguously positive position towards the introduction of the eCall
system;
8. Notes that the eCall system is based on the use of 112 and E112 (location information requirements in
public wireless networks for emergency calls);
9. Recalls that a majority of Member States have been slow in encouraging the use of the single European
emergency number 112; calls on the Commission to evaluate the implementation by the Member States ofDirective 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal serviceand users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services in relation to the appropriateanswering and handling of calls to the single European emergency call number, including the caller location;
10. Urges the Member States to complete the implementation of E112 as soon as possible, to promote
the use of both 112 and E112 and to take steps to provide the appropriate infrastructure in the PublicService Answering Points such as language training, availability, location identification, and call handlingto comply with the E112 regulation, which will then allow for incremental upgrading to handle eCalls;
11. Notes the disparity between the Commission's and industry's estimates of the cost of a built-in
vehicle eCall system;
12. Invites the Commission and industry to pursue a deeper cost-efficiency analysis for every action to be
undertaken to implement eCall;
13. Is aware that the technology needed for eCall will facilitate early adoption of other innovative active
safety applications by lowering the marginal costs of their introduction;
14. Is aware that the introduction of many new technologies cannot be instantaneous and therefore
encourages the Commission and industry to look into the gradual introduction and large-scale roll-out of
eCall through a combination of built-in vehicle systems and alternative systems such as the use of drivers'
mobile telephones and Bluetooth technology as well as built-in mobile telephones, while having specialregard to the right of privacy of drivers and passengers;
15. Having regard to the potential cost of the eCall system, which may be higher in regions affected by
permanent constraints, and being aware of the fact that many new technologies may prove costly and thatnew car buyers (particularly at the cheaper end of the market) are not always willing or able to pay the fullcost; calls on all stakeholders to work together to define incentives to speed up the introduction of the eCallsystem;
16. Is particularly concerned that the cost of eCall may be prohibitively expensive for those with the
greatest need, for example those in rural or isolated areas; believes that the eCall system should eventuallyapply to all vehicles, including Heavy Goods Vehicles;
17. Welcomes future initiatives and Communications of the Commission in the field of eSafety;
18. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the govern-
ments and parliaments of the Member States.C 296 E/270 EN 6.12.2006 Official Journal of the European Union
Thursday 27 April 2006