WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Loss of direct rail link between the Netherlands and the German border town of Emmerich in November 2000.
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Nord-Pas-de-Calais, North Rhine-Westphalia, Walloon region (Belgium), cross-border transport, rail transport

C 72 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

French, Spanish, Italian and British railways were unable to forward their new timetabling informa-
2.
tion to railway operators in other European countries in good time for the introduction of the new
timetables on 28 May 2000, with the result that no train services to the above four countries could be
included in the international timetables issued in those other countries. What action will the Commission
take to put a definite end to that situation not later than 9 June 2001 (the next date for introducing new
timetables) and to ensure that principal rail connections between European Union countries will be
included in good time in each country(cid:146)s timetable of international services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the information policy of railway undertakings
as well as co-ordination among them has not proved effective in many cases. This is in particular true for
questions related to timetables, train operations and other operational rules. The Commission is however
not in a position to force undertakings, on the basis of current legislation, to adopt a certain policy in view
of their customers and other undertakings. The Commission would like to recall that railway undertakings
have been given management independence by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on
the development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (1).

Referring to the obstacles to cross-border rail
Commission would like to point out
interoperability of conventional (i.e. all non-high-speed) rail transport (2).

transport, be they technical or organisational,
the
it proposed in November 1999 measures to raise the

that

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) COM(1999) 617 final.

(2001/C 72 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Loss of direct rail
in November 2000

link between the Netherlands and the German border town of Emmerich

1.
Can the Commission confirm that its policy continues to include efforts to bring areas along the
borders of EU Member States out of their isolation at the same time as promoting cross-border public
transport by train?

2.
Is the Commission aware that with effect from 5 November 2000, EC trains between Amsterdam
(NL) and Cologne (D) will no longer stop at the station in the German border town of Emmerich because
it will no longer be necessary to change locomotives there, owing to the introduction the new, ICE 3M,
rolling stock, even although the timetabled waiting time of 8 to 10 minutes in Emmerich will be retained,
so that the only difference will be that passengers will no longer be able to leave or board the train in
Emmerich? Is it further aware that the kilometrage for fare-calculation purposes from the Netherlands to
Emmerich was also increased, as at 28 May 2000, on the grounds that the ICE service was being
introduced in November?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable for a border town like Emmerich not only to lose its fast
3.
direct train service to Germany, making it less accessible from the direction of Cologne and D(cid:252)sseldorf, but
for the direct connection between Emmerich and the Netherlands to be completely cut off, with the result
that passengers wishing to make that journey by train will henceforward have to put up with a diversion
lasting more than one hour via Wesel, a good half-hour(cid:146)s travelling time from Emmerich?

4.
Does the Commission share my view that the loss of the above stopping service at Emmerich would
only be acceptable if it were to be replaced by substitute services, for example by extending Netherlands
local
trains as far as Zevenaar or Arnhem in the
Netherlands?

trains to Emmerich or extending German local

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/167

5. What action will the Commission take to prevent long-term deterioration in cross-border rail traffic,
also taking into account the fact that the cross-border local trains between Mons (B) and Aulnoye (F),
introduced in 1996 to compensate for the loss of the old route between Paris and Brussels, were also
withdrawn on 28 May 2000?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for the information given and fully
understands that the situation described leads to problems for people in the area in question who depend
on rail services to a greater or lesser extent.

The Commission tries in general to encourage railway undertakings to be much more receptive to the
needs and intentions of customers but would like to recall that the commercial decision of a railway
undertaking whether to let a certain train stop or not stop at any given station cannot formally be
influenced or changed by the Commission. This is due to the management independence of railway
undertakings granted to them by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the
development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (1).

Only the Member State in question could impose such a stop in the light of public service obligations.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2004/00

by Margot Ke(cid:223)ler (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Proposal for a Council Regulation determining the list of third countries whose nationals must be
in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt
from that requirement

1. When is the regulation scheduled to enter into force so that Bulgaria is no longer on the list of
countries for whose nationals a visa is required?

Is it not true that the opting-out provisions applicable to the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland

2.
are resulting in a multi -speed Europe and what message is this sending to the applicant countries?

In view of the numerous exemptions, the regulation appears to be of very limited value. Does it

3.
therefore still serve any useful purpose?

A change in political circumstances should alter the listing of a Member State accordingly (cid:129) in other

4.
words, how quickly is it possible for a country to move from one list to the other?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

1.
The Commission presented a proposal for a Council Regulation listing the third countries whose
nationals must be in possession of visas and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement on
26 January (1). The proposal is being examined by the Council and by Parliament. The Commission is
unable to offer any prior opinion as to when the Regulation will enter into force.