WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/01 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Moselle/Saône-Rhône wide waterway link.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, carriage of goods, economic development, financial aid, intra-EU transport, ship canal, transport infrastructure, transport policy

C 115 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Contacts have been undertaken with the United States on several occasions on this issue, the last being
during the bilateral High Level Consultations with the United States in July 2001. The United States have
promised to further examine this question and the Commission is currently in active consultations with
the American authorities to resolve this problem.

The Commission is not aware of any material injury suffered by European industry as a result of this
embargo, therefore, it is not in a position to take any remedial measures. However, it is not out of the
question that the Commission may examine this American policy in the context of the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) as regards a trade restrictive measure.

(2002/C 115 E/181)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2847/01

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Moselle/Saône-Rhône wide waterway link

The Commission has been asked to consider whether a Moselle/Sâone-Rhône wide waterway link could be
of European interest. Building the canals needed to link the Moselle, the Saône and the Rhône would
involve also linking the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the North Sea and the Baltic by a system of rivers
and canals. The Seine, Rhine, Rhône and Moselle basins are likely to remain dead-ends if there is no scope
for economic development on this north-south axis, at the centre of a large-scale ‘euro-corridor’.

The system mentioned above would offer the following advantages:

9 each 3000 tonne barge is the equivalent of some 200 heavy lorries, freeing road capacity, which is of

course an environmental benefit;

9 the tonne/kilometre cost of each container is estimated to be about half that of rail freight;

9 hydroelectric schemes are compatible with the aims of the Kyoto Protocol on climatic change.

The cost of a Moselle-Saône wide waterway link would be some 4 billion euros, which amount would
serve to remove congestion at the junction of the largest international traffic flows.

What is the Commission’s view of this project?

Does the Commission intend to carry out studies to assess its benefits and feasibility?

What Community funding could be provided (for example under the TENs)?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Two requests for funding concerning the project to create a Moselle/Sâone-Rhône link were indeed
received by the Commission in 2000 under Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995
laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European
networks (1). These requests concerned the study into and work of raising the height of bridges and
deepening the Moselle.

An examination of these applications showed that the technical maturity of the corresponding projects was
not sufficiently proven. Moreover, the amounts requested were less than € 1 million. Parliament has
recommended that, as a general rule, the Commission should not grant funding for trans-European
network projects of less than € 1 million. Having regard moreover to the whole of the budget available in
2000, the Commission therefore decided, in cooperation with the French authorities, to give priority to
projects in France which are technically more mature and involve higher amounts.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/175

The White Paper on European transport policy for 2010 (2) recognised inland waterways transport as being
particularly efficient in terms of energy consumption and use of space. The Commission notes in this
connection that the Moselle/Saône-Rhône link would form the only inland waterway connecting the North
Sea with the Mediterranean since the Rhine-Rhône canal project has been officially abandoned by the
Member State concerned. In the proposal for a decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of
the trans-European transport network (3) adopted by the Commission on 2 October 2001 (4), the Moselle/
Saône-Rhône link is therefore still shown as a planned inland waterway on the map of the inland
waterway network. Under the terms of Article 11 of that Decision, the modernisation or construction work
on that waterway should enable class Va/Vb to be achieved at a later date, thus allowing the passage of
vessels of 3000 tonnes.

Should a new request concerning the Moselle/Saône-Rhone link be made, the Commission would once
again examine the possibilities of funding under the abovementioned Regulation on the basis of the
intrinsic merits of the project and the available budget.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
(2) COM(2001) 370 final.
(3) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(4) COM(2001) 544 final.

(2002/C 115 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Bogus foundations established by interested parties and close connections with those auditing the

use of ESF monies in Limburg province, Netherlands

1.
Is the Commission aware that various investigations are underway in the Netherlands into the way in
which the now bankrupt firm Abb MCG used ESF grants, and that, according to a report in the NRC
Handelsblad of 1 September 2001, this was a case of unmitigated fraud and corruption?

2.
Is it also aware that Abb itself set up bogus foundations which, on paper, were responsible for
executing ESF projects but in practice delegated this task entirely to Abb as subcontractor, in order to be
able to charge lucrative fees?

3.
Does it know whether bogus foundation schemes are being used elsewhere? Has it conducted specific
investigations into this matter? Can it state how often such schemes have been used in the last 10 years,
and in which Member States?

4.
Does it consider such schemes to be compatible with the relevant rules? If not, what action is it
taking against those who were involved in them, either in executing projects, including specifically Abb, or
in commissioning projects, including specifically the Netherlands province of Limburg?

Is it aware that stakeholders in Abb were closely connected with the accountants whose job it was to
5.
audit Abb’s accounts,
is the son of Abb
shareholder and supervisory board member Ton Versteegh, and that audits on the authority which
i.e. the province of Limburg, were performed by Deloitte & Touche, with
commissioned the projects,
whom Ton Versteegh used to have connections?

in particular that Joep Versteegh, who performed the audit,

Is it aware of close connections existing elsewhere between those who execute such projects and the

6.
accountants performing the relevant audits? Has it conducted specific investigations into this matter?

7.
Does the Commission consider the state of affairs described in questions 6 and 7 to be compatible
with the rules in force. If not, what action is it taking against those involved in it, either in executing
projects, including specifically Abb, or in commissioning projects, including specifically the Netherlands
province of Limburg?