WRITTEN QUESTION P-3143/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council. Mont Blanc tunnel.
Date: 2001-11-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Italy, commercial vehicle, proposal (EU), road safety, tunnel

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/205

livestock sector. What is more, experience has shown that it is unrealistic to believe that if the refunds in
question were abolished, countries which have been traditional importers of live slaughter animals would
switch to importing meat. Given the supply situation on world markets, they would simply look to other
cattle-exporting countries for their supplies of these animals.

In the Commission’s opinion, the priority is to ensure strict enforcement of existing animal welfare
legislation. To this end, certain control criteria designed to improve the conditions under which animals
are transported, and the accompanying penalties for infringements, need to be tightened up. A number of
initiatives are already under way in this respect.

(1) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.
(2) OJ C 273, 28.9.2001.

(2002/C 134 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3143/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Council

(8 November 2001)

Subject: Mont Blanc tunnel

The Italian and French Transport Ministers have set 15 December 2001 as the date for the reopening of
the Mont Blanc tunnel following repairs and announced at the same time that it would reopen for heavy
vehicles several weeks later, with traffic running one way and alternating direction between the Mont Blanc
and Fréjus tunnels as if they formed one, twin-tubed tunnel, as was reported. This decision has sparked off
widespread criticism in the region, albeit for very different reasons. The two tunnels are on routes, both of
which, at the request of Italy and France, form part of the trans-European transport network and are
included in the White Paper on Transport. Although this document came out very recently, it is still based
on the assumption that traffic will run both ways in the two Alpine tunnels.

Given the above, how does the Council view the recent Italian-French decision in relation to Community
law? Does it not consider it more appropriate to agree to the proposal which has the support of a majority
of the population in the Valle d’Aosta to take the necessary measures to ensure stringent restrictions in the
volume of TIR traffic?

Reply

(18 February 2002)

Bearing in mind the series of tragic accidents in tunnels in the last few years, of which the recent
1.
accident in the Gotthard Tunnel is yet another instance, the Council is fully aware of the importance of
safety in road and rail tunnels. Indeed, this is one of the priorities of the common transport policy.

In its ‘transport’ configuration on 17 June 1999 the Council responded to the explicit request from the
Cologne European Council meeting on 3 and 4 June 1999 by asking the Commission to submit legislative
proposals for promoting safety in tunnels. As can be seen from the White Paper entitled ‘European
transport policy for 2010: time to decide’, the Commission is planning to submit a legislative proposal in
the near future for ensuring a high level of safety in road and rail tunnels. The proposal should cover all
aspects of tunnel safety, and the Council intends to deal with it promptly, taking due account of the wishes
expressed by the European Parliament in its resolution of 15 November 2001 on the Gotthard Tunnel
disaster.

Referring specifically to the questions raised by the Honourable Member, the Council would point
2.
out that the decision on reopening the Mont Blanc tunnel A as with any decision on regulating heavy
vehicle traffic along the lines mentioned by the Honourable Member A is more a matter for the national
authorities, and reflects a desire to ensure that, for the time being, people and goods can move freely under
conditions of safety.