WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. High-speed trains in the Roman orbital link area.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, directive (EU), high-speed transport, indemnification, rail network

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/149

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 October 2000)

The budgetary authority requested the Commission to pay grants to the European Movement by name in
the remarks to budget lines A-3021 and B3-301.

Under budget line A-3021 it has earmarked a grant of € 300 000 for the operational costs of the European
Movement(cid:146)s international secretariat in Brussels.

With regard to its operational activities, the European Movement receives funding under budget article
B3-301 (cid:145)Information outlets(cid:146) in accordance with this budget heading(cid:146)s remarks. The total of this funding,
which is intended to finance information activities targeting the public and information multipliers, is
approximately € 600 000 for 2000.

(2001/C 113 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2683/00

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: High-speed trains in the Roman orbital link area

At a time when work is about the begin on the construction sites in the area enclosed within Romp(cid:146)s main
orbital link (G.R.A.) with a view to building the Rome to Naples high-speed line and laying a second track
on the FM2 line, there are still many unresolved problems which have to do with the question whether
entire districts of Rome will be bearable places to live in the future. In particular, the matter of the damage
to be inflicted on the hundreds of people who will have to live cheek by jowl with the railway, on which
about two hundred trains a day are expected to run at top speeds of 200 k.p.h., has to date been dealt
with in a way giving rise to difficulties and discrimination.

The only official document enabling the damage resulting from the high-speed line to be quantified in
advance is the (cid:145)memorandum of understanding between TAV and Latium Region(cid:146), which lays down
compensation in respect of buildings situated not more than 30 m from the outer track of the high-speed
line. However, this memorandum applies only to the area lying outside the G.R.A. The area enclosed
within the G.R.A., which ought to be covered by an agreement between TAV and the City of Rome, has
been dealt with under a unilateral document called the (cid:145)Guidelines(cid:146) (drawn up by TAV), which provides for
compensation for those whose homes (cid:145)border(cid:146) on the high-speed line and the corresponding construction
sites.

The use of different methods has led to various instances of unequal treatment and discrimination, which
have halved the number and size of the compensation payments.

Furthermore, there is no mention of environmental impact assessments or works to offset the damage.

Can the Commission say whether there are any directives imposing an obligation to harmonise

1.
memorandums of understanding of this kind?

Does it believe that consultations between citizens and the powers-that-be, or in this case citizens,

2.
TAV, and the city authorities, should in any event be held before the work commences?

3. What is the Commission(cid:146)s general view on the matter?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

The Honourable Member is referring to the major infrastructure projects in the main orbital link are and
more particularly the building of the high-speed Rome-Naples line and the doubling of railway line FM2
between Rome and Lunghezza. As far as the latter project is concerned the Honourable Member refers to
two types of document providing for compensation of people living close by which are known,
respectively, as an (cid:145)agreement protocol(cid:146) and as (cid:145)guidelines(cid:146).

C 113 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

There are no Community Directives in existence that are intended to harmonise compensation for

1.
members of the public having suffered damage of this type.

This is a factor covered neither by Community law nor by the Commission(cid:146)s powers, but by national

2.
and local powers.

The Honourable Member is invited to refer to the answers given by the Commission to Written

3.
Questions E/578/98 (1) from the Honourable Member and 2274/00 from Mr Tajani (2).

(1) OJ C 386, 17.12.1998.
(2) OJ C 103 E, 3.4.2001, p. 104.

(2001/C 113 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2685/00

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Suspension of the moratorium on GMOs

The precautionary principle laid down by the World Health Organisation is recognised to be valid. Some
scientists are warning that GMOs should not be allowed to spread, because their effects on human health
are unknown. In the judgment handed down in the case arising from a dispute between ToolsAlpha and
Sweden, the Court of Justice ruled that in view of priority objectives such as public health, it was justifiable
to adopt provisions restricting the free movement of goods. As matters now stand, there is no measure of
certainty as to the nature and extent of legal and economic liability, in particular of manufacturers, for
damage caused by GMOs.

In the light of the foregoing:

1. What new scientific data have prompted the Commission decision to suspend the moratorium on

authorisation for the entry of genetically modified organisms?

2. What health guarantees is the Commission offering to Union citizens regarding the entry of transgenic

cultures to Union territory?

3. Will it assume responsibility for bio-contamination damage resulting from the decision in question, or

will it pass on that responsibility to the Member States or indeed the manufacturers?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2000)

Against a background of public and political concern, Member States are increasingly reluctant to approve
new genetically modified organism (GMO) products and the authorisation procedure has subsequently
ground to a standstill. This standstill has been referred to as a moratorium although it does not constitute
a legal ban on GMOs.

The objective of the Commission, as discussed at its meeting of 12 July 2000,
is to re-launch the
authorisation procedure under a regulatory framework that guarantees the highest level of protection for
public health and the environment and which allows citizens to make an informed choice with respect to
the purchase and consumption of GMO products. The authorisation procedure is based upon a
comprehensive assessment of risks to human health and the environment and where necessary the opinion
of the scientific committees is sought to validate the scientific basis. A notification is only carried forward
where the scientific data demonstrates that there is no reason to believe that the GMO will cause adverse
effects on human health and the environment.