WRITTEN QUESTION E-2500/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Greatly increased journey times as a result of poor coordination between the Netherlands and Belgian railways and the advent of high-speed railway lines.
Date: 2001-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, high-speed transport, international transport, organisation of transport, public service, rail transport, transport capacity

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/145

Although of interest in itself, this initiative restricts the number of possible beneficiaries to the enterprises
listed in Law 448, under which, as is common knowledge, applications will be accepted from medium to
large-sized enterprises, which already have appropriate advisory support.

Would the Commission not agree that this restriction is contrary to the EU objective (restated in the NOP)
of promoting entrepreneurship, with particular reference to the emergence of micro-enterprises, by giving
companies that do not already have them the instruments they require to take a new approach in this
area?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The national operational programme for local business development (Sviluppo imprenditoriale locale)
under the Community Support Framework for Objective 1 regions in Italy in the programming period
2000-06 is intended to provide financing for the general aid scheme for productive investment under
Italian Law No 488/92, and for integrated aid packages relating to capital
investment, research and
development, innovation, the purchase of real services, credit guarantees and improving workers’ skills.
Community aid allocated to this operational programme totals EUR 1 978.9 million.

The operational programme includes measures involving a contribution to the financing of guidance to
help small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) define and carry out investment projects of an innovative
nature. These measures are restricted to SMEs, which, unlike large companies, lack the resources to prepare
and implement this type of investment.

It is also worth noting that, following the first four calls for tenders issued under Law No 488/92, small
firms accounted for 60 % of the aid granted.

(2002/C 93 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2500/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Greatly increased journey times as a result of poor coordination between the Netherlands and

Belgian railways and the advent of high-speed railway lines

Is the Commission aware that in the timetable for a period of at least 18 months from 10 June 2001
1.
to 14 December 2002 the hourly cross-border rail service between Brussels and Amsterdam no longer
provides normal connections between Belgium and the South and East of the Netherlands in either
direction. This is because trains from Brussels arrive at 57 minutes past the hour while the connecting
trains to Tilburg @ Nijmegen @ Zwolle leave one minute earlier and in the opposite direction trains arrive
at the Rosendaal junction at five minutes past the hour and the connecting train to Brussels now leaves
four minutes earlier at three minutes past the hour?

2.
Does the Commission not agree that the replacement of connections that have existed for years
allowing time to change trains with a timetable that allows no time to make the connection reflects
inadequate coordination between the Netherlands (NS) and Belgian (NMBS/SNCB) railways, which, for the
sake of timetabling their domestic train services easily, have imposed a waiting time of one hour in the
southern direction and half an hour in the northern direction for connections between the two countries?

3.
Does the Commission see any possibility of helping to find a speedy solution to this cross-border
problem and the irritation caused to cross-border train passengers by improving coordination between
train services in the Netherlands and Belgium, or does it accept a situation in which existing structures for
intensive cooperation in Europe do not prevent traffic bottlenecks of this kind, for which there is no
justification whatsoever, continuing or occurring again?

C 93 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

4. What will happen in September 2005 when the speed and capacity of services between Brussels and
Amsterdam will
increase when the cross-border high-speed line between Antwerp and Rotterdam is
finished but there will no longer be any possibility of changing trains in Rosendaal and still less in Breda
because the high-speed trains travelling along the western side of the city will not stop at any station with
an East-West connection? What is now being done to ensure that an alternative direct connection between
the East and South of the Netherlands and the extended Antwerp central station will be provided via the
old line through Rosendaal?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

1.

No, the Commission was not aware of this information.

2.
It is not up to the Commission to judge about specific timetables. With the adoption of the
infrastructure package directives 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC (1) a new regulatory
framework has to be put in place at the latest by 15 march 2003. According to these directives, the
infrastructure managers shall organise international train paths upon request of the railway undertakings.
In the network statement the infrastructure manager must outline the priorities allowed to international
passenger trains.

The Commission has no power to take action on these points. However, it accepts that the
3. and 4.
potential of cross-border passenger rail transport in Europe is far from being fulfilled. It considers it
appropriate for cross-border as well as national public transport services to be subject to public service
requirements designed to ensure the delivery of adequate public passenger transport. Whether rail
operators benefit from financial compensation for the provision of services or only from an exclusive right,
they should in exchange be required to fulfil defined public service requirements. The Commission’s
proposal for a regulation on public services in public transport (2) provides a mechanism that competent
authorities on either side of national borders can use to achieve this.

(1) Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/
440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001Directive 2001/13/EC of the
Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of
railway undertakings, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway
infrastructure and safety certification, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(2) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2002/C 93 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2507/01

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 September 2001)

Subject: Availability of documents in the languages of

the candidate countries for accession to the

European Union

The success of the candidate countries’ accession will also depend on public support in these countries. At
present such support is declining, because more and more people are gaining an insight into the problems
associated with accession.

Debate and dialogue with the population are thus very important, but there is also a need for effective
communication and reports (on accession requirements), for example, must be made available in the
languages of the accession countries.

An information office has been opened in Poland, for example, where all reports are distributed in all
languages … except Polish.

As part of an open dialogue on accession, can the Commission make available the progress reports in the
languages of the future Member States?