WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Obstruction of international rail journeys due to extremely high fares designed to cover a levy by the State of the Netherlands on a concessionaire.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, cross-border transport, high-speed transport, invitation to tender, provision of services, rail transport

C 172 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

(2002/C 172 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3548/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Obstruction of international rail journeys due to extremely high fares designed to cover a levy by

the State of the Netherlands on a concessionaire

Is the Commission aware that, through a public auction in May 2001, a partnership comprising the
1.
rail company NS and the airline KLM acquired for 15 years from 1 October 2006 the exclusive right to
operate domestic and international rail services on the new high-speed line Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Breda
which is being linked to the existing Brussels-Paris line by means of a tunnel under the city of Antwerp in
Belgium?

2.
Is the Commission aware, furthermore, that NS/KLM are to pay EUR 148 million per annum for this,
whereas competitors such as the German rail company DB and the British bus company Arriva offered less
than EUR 100 m?

3.
Bearing in mind that, until recently, the impression had been given that the fares charged to
passengers on the new line would be of a normal level, with the possible addition of an express-service
surcharge such as is also customary in other countries, does the Commission consider it to be normal, and
an example worthy of emulation elsewhere, for the enormous payment to the State of the Netherlands to
be financed by charging future passengers fares which will exceed the current normal level by an average
of 50 %, and in the rush hour by as such as 100 %?

4. What view does the Commission take of the fact that this line is an ‘additional’ facility for domestic
traffic in the Netherlands, whose use may be restricted to a small, affluent category of travellers who are
able and willing to pay large amounts for a parallel express service, whereas the justification for
constructing this line was that it would provide a ‘replacement’ for long-distance international services to
and from Belgium and France?

After 2006, will the nearby parallel hourly service on the main line between the Netherlands and
5.
Belgium from Amsterdam to Brussels via Roosendaal and Antwerp be retained, with normal fares,
in
addition to this international service which will be extremely expensive for passengers, so as to avoid the
creation of a monopoly accompanied by disproportionately high fares which in practice would constitute
an inescapable new tax on international travel between two EU Member States?

Source: ‘De Volkskrant’, 5 December 2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

1. and 2. The
Commission has been informed about the tendering procedure organised by the Dutch
authorities for train services to be operated on the HogeSnelheidslijn (HSL)-Zuid (1) section in the
Netherlands, for which the Commission provided funding within the framework of the Trans-European
Transport Networks. The Commission has also been informed that
the proposal submitted by a
Consortium consisting of the Dutch operator Nederlandse spoorwegen (NS) and Royal Dutch Airlines
KLM has been selected by the Dutch authorities as providing the best value for money. The Commission
has not been informed or notified about the content of the other bids.

3.
The tariff structure on the future high-speed link will be determined, amongst others, by a pre-
defined service level (such as the availability of enough seats), which requires adaptation of the price level
of the tickets. It will also be determined by infrastructure charges as provided for by Directive 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 (2), which
main purpose is to set a framework to charge users for the costs of construction, maintenance and use of
the rail infrastructure. Further to Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action
by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/81

rail, road and inland waterway (3), the Dutch authorities could include in its contract with the Railway
Undertaking (i.e. NS/KLM) tariff reductions for specific groups, such as students or persons with reduced
mobility, or even all passengers.

The Commission takes note of this fact, but can not express a view on it, on the basis of the

4.
information currently available.

The Commission does not have information on the future of

5.
the current services between
Amsterdam and Brussels over Roosendaal and Antwerp. In principle, this is a matter of the Railway
Undertakings, which operate services on this link. This service could be made subject to a Public Service
contract
to be concluded between Belgium and the Netherlands on the one hand and Railway
Undertakings on the other. In its White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (4),
the Commission has set as objective to maintain the modal share of rail transport in 2010 at the level of
1998, notably to manage the expected increase in transport demand. It notes that international services are
frequently inadequate in volume, quality and reliability in comparison with national services. The White
Paper also announces that the Commission will table proposals to safeguard the quality of rail services and
users’ rights, and it will develop those and other proposals in close co-operation with the main actors and
stakeholders involved.

(1) HSL Zuid: High Speed Link South: the section from the Dutch/Belgian border to Amsterdam of the Paris-Brussels-

Amsterdam High Speed Link.

(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.
(3) OJ L 156, 28.6.1969.
(4) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2002/C 172 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3551/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry

(20 December 2001)

On 5 December the Council of Industry Ministers failed to agree a common position on the temporary aid
to be granted to the European shipbuilding industry in order to enable it to withstand the unfair
competition being practised by South Korea. Such competition has a detrimental effect on the industry,
which, unless the situation changes, is likely to see many of its constituent companies go out of business.

Will the Commission say why it has not complained (and, apparently, is not going to complain) to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) about South Korea’s unfair practices? Will the Commission provide
information regarding its latest plans (following the rejection of temporary aid by the Council of Ministers)
to tackle the situation in which the European shipbuilding industry currently finds itself, since that industry
cannot continue passively accepting the damage done to it by unfair South Korean competition?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission took note that
the Council of 5 December 2001 was not ready to endorse the
Commission’s proposal for a temporary defence mechanism. On the other hand, as the Honourable
Member certainly knows, the Commission has received and accepted an industry request to update the
Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) investigation to cover the period from December 2000 to November
2001. An update of the report is currently being prepared by the Commission.

Any complaint
the further
investigation. The updating of the injury part of the TBR report indeed appears appropriate; it would allow
the Commission to rely on more recent and accurate injury data at the time of WTO action.

to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must await

the outcome of