WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Impact of embargo on flight safety in Iran.
Date: 2002-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Iran, air safety, aircraft, civil aviation, import restriction, international sanctions, maintenance, spare part, transport accident

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/101

So far, the Commission has no evidence that railway undertakings from Belgium, Spain and Austria

2.
suffer any particular disadvantages for international train services through high infrastructure charges.

3.
According to the information available to the Commission, there is no specific rail infrastructure
charge for border-crossing lines in Italy. As to the relative level of rail infrastructure charges in the Member
States the Commission is aware that there are significant variations. For instance, according to a study of
the Prognos AG (Basel)
for the Deutsche Verkehrsforum from November 2000 (‘Netzzugang und
Trassenpreisbildung im westeuropäischen Schienenverkehr’) the average rail infrastructure charges per train
km varied in 2000 from ca. € 0,40 in the Netherlands over € 1,50 in Austria, € 2 in France, € 2,50 in Italy,
€ 3,25 in Germany, € 3,50 in Switzerland to € 7,50 in the United Kingdom.

4.
The Commission considers that international long distance rail passenger services that reply to the
expectations of rail passengers are a desirable feature of the Community passenger transport system. In a
recent Communication (‘Towards an integrated European railway area’) (2), the Commission has analysed
the situation of this sector and discussed a number of options to develop the regulatory framework in the
future to increase its competitiveness. The Commission is of the opinion that under improved regulatory
framework conditions, either international rail services are competitive in price and service quality and do
not need any public financial support or the competent public authorities consider the service of a public
interest and conclude a contract with a railway undertaking which foresees an appropriate public service
compensation. Under the Commission’s proposal for a draft Regulation on public services in public
transport (3), this compensation should normally be awarded following a competitive call for tenders. The
is associated with cost-
available evidence shows that such competitive tendering on passenger rail
efficiency and with increases in numberspassengers.

5.
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 (1) sets out the structure of rail infrastructure charging systems in the Community. The basic
principle that the national charging systems must comply with is marginal cost pricing which provides
strong incentives for an efficient use of the infrastructure and enhances the competitiveness of rail services.
Member States can if they so wish add supplements (so called mark-ups) to the marginal cost element.
Member States will have to transpose the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC into national law and apply
them by March 2003.

(1) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.
(2) COM(2002) 18 final.
(3) COM(2002) 107 final.

(2002/C 229 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0552/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(4 March 2002)

Subject: Impact of embargo on flight safety in Iran

In recent years, a number of accidents have occurred involving Iranian airline flights, such as in May 2001
when an Iran Air Russian-built Yakovlev-40 crashed in north-east Iran and, more recently, when an Iran
Air Tupolev was reported to have crashed with 117 passengers on board.

These accidents are mainly attributable to the total lack of spare parts, as a result of the US embargo, for
the Boeing aircraft which the Iranian airline has and which forces it to buy technologically outdated
aircraft from the countries of the former Soviet Union. It is also reported that, over the last 12 years, Iran
Air has sought to buy European Airbuses but has been refused because of the embargo.

C 229 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Given that the safety of Iran Air flights is directly jeopardised by the embargo, with innocent human
beings the victims, will the Council say:

1. whether it can confirm the refusal to sell Airbus to Iran Air,

2. whether it feels jointly responsible for the innocent lives lost, and

3. whether it proposes to reconsider its policy forthwith?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The issues raised by the Honourable Member do not fall within the Union’s competence.

(2002/C 229 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0555/02

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE), Luigi De Mita (PPE-DE),
Giovanni Fava (PSE), Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE),
Francesco Musotto (PPE-DE), Giorgio Napolitano (PSE), Mauro Nobilia (UEN),
Guido Podestà (PPE-DE), Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN), Guido Sacconi (PSE),
Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR), Mariotto Segni (UEN)
and Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds for the 1994-1999 programming period

Given that:

G the activities cofinanced by the Structural Funds for the 1994-1999 programming period were

concluded on 31 December 2001;

G the time taken to approve the programmes meant that it was not possible to make the relevant

payments and commitments until 1995.

G although the final figures for implementation are not yet available, the report on the arrangements
and implementation times for cofinanced measures under the Structural Funds published by the
Presidency of the Council of Ministers says on page 213 that, in the case of the ESF, spending for
Objective 3 in Italy as at December 1999 was 66 % of the total;

G a joint study by the London School of Economics and the University of Castellanza has sounded an
alarm bell about Italy’s spending capacity in relation to the Structural Funds and on 30 June 2001 the
Sole 24 Ore newspaper reported non-payment of EUR 5,2 billion;

G the total amount unspent by Italy is apparently more than a billion Euro;

G the spending capacity of the Funds has been affected by the introduction of new and highly complex
procedures involving the regions and provinces to a greater extent in programming and spending;

G at the end of the programming period concluded in 1993, a bridging programme was set up for funds

not used;

G Italy is lagging far behind in terms of training in informatics and telematics and languages and despite
having raised training requirements in these areas and having introduced compulsory training for all
apprentices, it finds itself in a position where this requirement is being widely ignored owing to lack
of funds.

In the light of the above, can the European Commission give details of the total amount of Structural Fund
resources not used in Italy during the 1994-1999 programming period and corresponding figures for the
other EU countries?