WRITTEN QUESTION E-3769/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Accidents in the EU.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common transport policy, competence of the Member States, transport accident, tunnel

C 174 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2001)

The Commission is aware that journeys in breach of Directive 91/628/EC (1) as amended (2) are still taking
place within the Community. Day-to-day enforcement of Community legislation is the responsibility of
Member States. The Food and Veterinary Office of the Commission undertakes on-the-spot checks in
Member States to ensure that authorities apply Community legislation in an effective and uniform manner.

It should be mentioned that the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against some Member
States in relation to their failure to implement Community legislation in this field.

In addition, the Commission adopted on 5 December 2000 a report (3) on the implementation by the
Member States of rules on animal transport. The Council and the Parliament will discuss this report. It
finds major shortcomings in enforcement of the legislation by national authorities. The Commission
intends to review the current legislation as a follow-up to this report.

Measures to encourage the slaughter of animals closer to the places where they are raised will be examined
in that context, taking account of the fact that economies of scale and higher meat hygiene standards lead
towards a concentration of and reduction in the number of slaughterhouses.

An overview of the cases where export subsidies are withdrawn or not paid on the grounds of failure to
comply with the provisions of Council Regulation 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common
organisation of the market in beef and veal (4) is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(1) Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending

Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, OJ L 148, 30.6.1995.
(3) COM(2000) 809 final.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 174 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3769/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Accidents in the EU

In reaction to the tragic accident in Kaprun in Austria, where over 150 people lost their lives in tragic
circumstances, and given that accidents of this kind are occurring more and more frequently, what specific
steps does the Commission intend to take to protect, within the shortest possible space of time, those
travelling through European road and rail tunnels?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Since the cable train fire at Kaprun on 11 November 2000, the Commission has been reassessing the
measures the Community could take to improve the safety of road and rail tunnels. It is already apparent
that safety levels in tunnels can vary considerably depending on the length and design of the tunnel, its
equipment, the way it is operated and the volume and nature of the traffic using it. It falls primarily to the
authorities directly in charge of tunnels to reassess their safety on a regular basis and to take steps to
maintain that safety at a high level.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/139

The Community can provide value added in three areas. On the technical side, without duplicating the
work of such international bodies as the World Road Association,
the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the
Community can devise a methodology for overall tunnel safety assessment, taking account of all factors
affecting safety levels, so as to encourage greater safety in certain tunnels without producing detailed
requirements for alterations. The Commission is also assessing the expediency of introducing a European
regulatory framework for new tunnels. On the operating side,
it is important that tunnels be rapidly
equipped with automatic hazard and accident detection systems, and with automatic vehicle alert and fire
extinguishing systems. Further research work is required, and the Community programme will be called
upon to help move things forward. On the financial side, major tunnels which provide more direct traffic
routes are of Community interest, and the Community may thus be expected to draw upon available
sources of funding to make a financial contribution towards work to make them safe. To this end, part of
the trans-European transport networks budget could be earmarked for improvements to the oldest tunnels.

(2001/C 174 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3780/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Objective 2 aid to Hainaut

The awarding of Objective 2 aid to the Walloon province of Hainaut is leading to the relocation of firms
which have been established for many years in the neighbouring province of Western Flanders.

The businesses operators in question acknowledge that the removal of their activities to Hainaut is entirely
dependent on their obtaining Objective 2 subsidies. If these business operators do not obtain any European
aid, they will keep their operations in Western Flanders. In order to be considered for such aid they have
to have their company headquarters in Hainaut.

I should be glad if the Commission would answer the following questions. For the sake of completeness I
should add that these questions were first submitted to the Commission in mid-March 2000 (Written
Question E-0951/00). Since then the Commission has merely said that the information in question still
had to be gathered.

How many applications have been made since 1 January 2000 for Objective 2 aid for new economic

1.
operations in Hainaut, and to what do they relate?

2. When and where were the company headquarters of these firms registered?

3.

(a) How many of these firms were formerly operating in the province of Western Flanders?

(b) How many of these firms are currently operating in Western Flanders?

Have the firms in question expressly been asked whether their relocation from Western Flanders to

4.
Hainaut is dependent on the award of Objective 2 aid?

(a)

(b)

If so, how many (cid:145)West Flanders(cid:146) operators would choose to move their operations to Hainaut without
Objective 2 aid?

If not, will the Commission ask these business operators to what extent their relocation is dependent
upon Objective 2 aid?

Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent the relocation of West Flanders firms to

5.
Hainaut?

(a)

If so, what measures?

(b)

If not, why not?