WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Light-rail tunnels left unused in European cities owing to financial difficulties and competition rules.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: rail transport, suburban transport, sustainable development, transport infrastructure, transport policy, underground railway, urban transport

C 134 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The Ministries for Justice, Interior Affairs and Wellbeing, Public Health and Sport have also benefited

6.
from ESF.

7. and 8.
The ESF agency of the Ministry of SZW has, at its own initiative, started an investigation and
depending on the outcome the Commission may decide to start its own investigation. The reply to
question 8 depends also on the outcome of the investigation of the ESF Agency referred to above.

(2002/C 134 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Light-rail tunnels left unused in European cities owing to financial difficulties and competition

rules

1.
Is the Commission aware that many European towns and cities closed their tram networks between
the 1930s and 1960s to make way for the motor car, and that much hard work has been done during the
past few decades to reinstate former, extend existing and build new urban rail networks for conventional
trams, high-speed trams, metros and regional railways, so that towns and cities remain liveable in terms of
the environment, land use and accessibility, and is it also aware that substantial investments have been
made and are still being made in this field?

2.
Is it also aware that in a number of European towns and cities, including Seville (Andalusia, Spain)
and Charleroi (Wallonia, Belgium), metro tunnels were completed some time ago but have not been used
because the money for laying tracks, the purchase of rolling stock and paying staff ran out, so that public
transport still takes the form of slow, low-capacity buses which have to share roads with heavy traffic
made up of private cars?

3.
Is it alarmed that costly large-scale urban rail infrastructure already in use risks being abandoned, as
it has in Ludwigshafen (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany), where principal tram route 12 (ex 48) between the
suburbs of Rheingönheim and Oppau, which runs through a specially built metro-type tunnel skirting the
north side of the city centre and serving the ‘Hauptbahnhof’, ‘Danzigerplatz’ and ‘Rathaus’ stops, has been
reduced to a peak-hours only route since 10 June 2001?

Can it confirm that cost-cutting in preparation for the competition that is looming in connection
4.
with application of the rules for the putting out to tender of public transport services in the European
Union is the reason for the closure of this formerly principal tram route in Ludwigshafen for most of the
day?

If financial problems and European rules are impeding the building,

5.
introduction, bringing into
service and continued operation of urban rail links, what does the Commission propose to do to foster the
successful development of urban rail transport and to help improve its competitiveness vis-à-vis bus
transport, whose performance in towns and cities is becoming increasingly inadequate?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2001)

The Commission is not aware of any instances of cities reducing their use of urban rail infrastructure in
order to lower their expenditure in anticipation of European legislative requirements, or any aspect of draft
legislation that would require them to do so.

The Commission agrees that urban rail systems, including light rail and metro, have a vital role to play in
bringing about a significant reduction in car use and an increased use of public transport. This is
supported by evidence from cities that have introduced or upgraded such rail systems.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/127

the Commission is proposing a
In order to promote the competitiveness of urban rail systems,
Regulation (1) on public service contracts in public passenger transport. This will require competent
authorities who wish to award exclusive rights or financial compensation to public transport operators to
put in place contracts and, in most cases, to award these contracts following a competitive tendering
procedure. This system of controlled competition has been shown to bring about increased passenger
numbers and improved efficiency, thereby improving competitiveness.

In addition, and as set out in the recent common transport policy White Paper (2), the Commission
proposes to support the overall improvement of urban transport. In particular, the White Paper sets out
that the Commission will provide funding for innovative towns and cities (for example, a number of the
participants in the Civitas initiative are improving their light rail systems) and identify and disseminate
good practice (for example: many participants in the citizen’s network benchmarking programme have or
are planning to introduce urban rail systems).

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
(2) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2002/C 134 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2853/01

by Florence Kuntz (EDD) to the Commission

(8 October 2001)

Subject: Imposition of VAT on service charges

On 1 October 2001 new rules entered into force in France making the imposition of VAT compulsory on
service charges claimed on behalf of staff in catering and hairdressing establishments.

Until this year, however, France had been exempted from this requirement as a result of Council Decision
89/487/EEC (1) of 28 July 1989 authorising the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the
second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC (2) on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

It was only following a decision of the Court of Justice, delivered on 29 March 2001, that it became
possible to bring this derogation to an end. Why did it take the Commission and the Court more than ten
years to denounce a situation which was a problem for no one except themselves? In particular, why was
it necessary to introduce the VAT requirement in respect of service charges just as the euro was being
introduced? The new currency will itself give rise to inflationary pressures linked to its conversion rate
(6,55957 francs to the euro) and the problems which rounding off prices will pose. Will the Commission
explain why it has accepted this absurd timing and thereby taken the risk of heightening recessionary
trends by discouraging private consumption, which is an engine of growth?

(1) OJ L 239, 16.8.1989, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2001)

The derogation referred to in the Honourable Member’s question which was granted to France by Council
decision of 28 July 1989 is in no way intended to enable France to exclude service charges from the VAT
assessment basis. This measure, which derogates from Article 17(6) of the Six Directive 77/388/EEC on the
harmonisation of legislation on the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, authorised France
to exclude tax on certain representational expenditure from the right to deduct VAT. This derogation was
deemed to be invalid by the Court of Justice in its ruling of 19 September 2000 (1).

As guardian of the EC Treaty the Commission must ensure that Community legislation is properly
implemented by the Member States even in the transition period preceding the introduction of the euro.