WRITTEN QUESTION E-1523/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Plans to reduce the market share of national, regional and local public transport operators.
Date: 2000-05-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, liberalisation of the market, means of public conveyance

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/47

(2001/C 89 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1521/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 May 2000)

Subject: Ratification of the Rome Statute and associated establishment of war-crimes tribunal

On 17 June 1998 the United Nations adopted the so-called (cid:145)Rome Statute(cid:146), which will provide, on
ratification by 60 member countries, for the establishment of a permanent international war-crimes
tribunal. The statute moreover affords considerable scope for sanctioning violence against women in war,
in particular by including rape, (cid:145)sex slavery(cid:146), forced prostitution, forced pregnancy, forced sterilisation and
other forms of sexual violence in the definition of war crimes. Italy has hitherto been the only EU State to
ratify the Rome Statute, all other Member States still having failed to do so.

Can the Council indicate whether it will call on the remaining 14 Member States to ratify the Rome Statute
as a matter of urgency, thereby ensuring that no further obstacle can stand in the way of establishing a
permanent war-crimes tribunal?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The European Union considers that the process of establishing the International Criminal Court has an
historical dimension and that it sends a signal that the world can be made a safer and more just place to
live in. The Member States were also very active and well coordinated in the work leading to the adoption
of the ICC statutes. Furthermore, the EU is doing its utmost to ensure that the Preparatory Commission
succeeds in its task.

The EU is of the opinion that a culture of impunity cannot be tolerated, especially with regard to gross
violations of international law such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Where national
courts cannot or do not want to act, the international community has the ultimate responsibility for
ensuring that justice is served. The International Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have
already contributed substantially to increasing compliance with international
the
adoption of the Statute of a permanent International Criminal Court to try the most serious crimes and
violations of humanitarian law is of great importance and the earliest possible entry into force of this
statute represents one of the top priorities for the European Union.

law. Consequently,

Italy, France and Belgium have already ratified the ICC statute. The other Member States have all entered
the process leading to ratification and, depending on their national procedures, they should be completed,
for most of them, in the near future. The situation concerning ratification of the ICC statute in the EU is
regularly raised by the Presidency in the meetings of the Council Working Group for International Law.

(2001/C 89 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1523/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 May 2000)

Subject: Plans to reduce the market share of national, regional and local public transport operators

1.
On 12 April 2000, the Dutch periodical OV-Magazine reported that European Commissioner de
Palacio was considering replacing the existing Regulations 1191/69 (1) and 1893/91 (2) with a new
regulation containing different provisions concerning the financial relationship between public authorities
and public transport operators, with the aim of promoting competition, one element of which would
consist of reducing to 25 % the maximum market share which any public transport operator should be
permitted to hold in a town, province or country. Can the Commission confirm that such changes to the
rules are being considered or prepared?

C 89 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Does the Commission (cid:129) either in accordance with the plans referred to in Question 1 or otherwise
2.
(cid:129) intend to make it impossible in future for a public transport operator owned by a municipality or by a
regional authority (the authority of a conurbation, province or Land) to operate the public transport
services of the area concerned, with democratic control by the municipal council, regional assembly or
national parliament over the network, quality and fares? What advantages would there be in such a
reduction in democratic control?

3.
Can the Commission confirm that in most cases, even after the compulsory breaking-up and
privatisation of existing public transport enterprises (as for example after the abolition and breaking-up
of British Rail), monopolies continue to exist on most lines, so that genuinely free competition does not
obtain, and that the further introduction of free competition would result in situations similar to those
which exist in the Third World, where normal public transport has in many cases been replaced by poor
services based on taxibuses without fixed routes, timetables or fares?

4. Why should an upper limit for market share apply to public transport operators which does not
apply to other enterprises, which would moreover require successful operators to give up some of their
routes if passenger numbers were to rise sharply and which would ultimately result in good operators
having to surrender routes to competitors who would offer a poorer service?

(1) OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 169, 29.6.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 July 2000)

The public transport sector is no longer composed of tightly closed national markets, and there is a need
to update Community legislation (notably Council Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of 26 June 1969 on
action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in
transport by rail, road and inland waterway (1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91 of 20 June
1991 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (2)). The Commission(cid:146)s work programme for 2000 includes
a proposal to do so. The Commission is still working on the details of this proposal.

Society often needs more and better public transport than the market will supply. Public authorities need
to set standards for quality, fares and integration. The Commission plans to reinforce this role, not hinder
it. Many publicly owned public transport companies provide an excellent service. The Community has no
power to exclude them from access to the market, and there would be no advantage in doing so. However,
the advantages of competition (cid:129) entailing better and more cost-effective services (cid:129) make a strong case in
favour of ensuring that operators holding exclusive rights or public contracts are obliged, from time to
time, to demonstrate that they are still capable of providing the best service for the area.

The Commission shares the view that completely deregulated public transport markets, which operators
may enter and leave at any time, do not offer passengers the best result. In particular, they make it very
difficult to ensure integration between the services provided by different operators. By contrast, studies
suggest that (cid:145)controlled competition(cid:146), in which exclusive rights last for a fixed period and are renewed
following competition, is a promising approach. Experience is most widespread in the bus sector, where
most Member States have introduced or plan to introduce an element of controlled competition, with
good results.

It is true that there may be a need, in the context of market opening, for authorities in the Member States
to take action to deal with damaging market concentration. But the Commission has no plan to propose
mandatory limits on the market share that an operator may hold.

(1) OJ L 156, 28.6.1969.
(2) OJ L 169, 29.6.1991.