WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Cross-border railway between Groningen and Bremen; finding a publicly acceptable and appropriate solution for resumption of the service.
Date: 2002-04-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, cross-border transport, provision of services, rail transport

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/145

(2002/C 277 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border railway between Groningen and Bremen; continuing failure to resume the service

because of conflicting interests

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the fact that the train service between Nieuweschans in the
Netherlands and Leer in Germany following replacement of the track and despite the announcements made
in the German Railways ‘Kursbuch’ (line 397 or H5) and in the Dutch Railways Spoerboekje (line 520 or
12int) has still not been resumed because of an endless series of disputes about invitations to tender? First
of all it was evident that the Deutsche Bahn (DB) no longer had any interest, subsequently the Land of
Lower Saxony excluded the Dutch company NoordNed which operates an hourly service between
Groningen and Nieuweschans and could easily have continued on to Leer, from participating. After that
the price quoted by Nordwestbahn, the regional operator in Lower Saxony for seven trains a day between
Groningen and Leer was considered too high. Finally, the DB were nonetheless forced to resume the
service in some way because of the existing concession.

2.
Can the Commission also confirm that the end result of the situation described in paragraph 1 above
has not been achieved, firstly because DB wanted to subcontract the service to NoordNed but subsequently
the two companies failed to agree on the financial terms, with the result that on 1 March 2002 the West
Lower Saxony DB Regiobahn regional railway was to operate a short shuttle service between Leer in
Germany and the Dutch border town of Nieuweschans which is to be used as the connecting station?

Is the Commission also aware that even the solution proposed for 1 March 2002 has not gone ahead
3.
because the West Lower Saxony DB Regiobahn is not a recognised operator in the Netherlands which
means that for the time being it is not authorised to run trains on the 1 200 km of track in Netherlands
territory and that it is not easy to cross to the other side of the platform because of the arrangement of the
tracks at Nieuweschans station?

Source: ‘Het Openbaar Vervoer/Railnieuws’, Volume 45 No 522, March 2002. rail@wanadoo.nl.

(2002/C 277 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border railway between Groningen and Bremen; finding a publicly acceptable and appropri-

ate solution for resumption of the service

Does the Commission agree that the situation regarding the upgrading and operation of the short
1.
cross-border rail link between Nieuweschans and Leer is an example of inadequate cooperation between
EU Member States and even creates the impression that there is no EU whatsoever and that EU efforts to
overcome the traditional backwardness of border areas and obstacles to cross-border connections are being
disregarded?

2.
Does the Commission consider that we can continue to accept a situation in which the short cross-
border link between the Dutch and German railway networks, both of which operate hourly services, can
continue to constitute an unnecessary barrier creating serious problems to the use of the railways for
cross-border traffic as a result of misunderstandings, disputes and conflicting interests?

3.
Does the Commission consider it acceptable that passenger trains are not returning to this line, or
only with a connection that is of significantly poorer quality, because of the need for an extra change, than
it was before the old connection was suspended in 2000?

C 277 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Does the Commission agree that the most obvious, publicly acceptable, appropriate and affordable
4.
solution is that the existing hourly service between Groningen and Nieuweschans should be extended a
short distance over the border to Leer, instead of having a few special cross-border trains a day or a very
limited shuttle service between Nieuweschans and Leer?

5. What measures does the Commission envisage taking in order to help bring these protracted and
unproductive disputes to an end as soon as possible and ensure that the original objective of the upgrading
work, namely a better and more frequent train connection with as few changes as possible between
Groningen and Bremen can be achieved without delay?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1078/02, E-1079/02 and E-1080/02
given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 May 2002)

The Commission is in the process of gathering the information required to answer the question. It will
communicate its findings to the Honourable Member as soon as possible.

(2002/C 277 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Uncertainty as to progress in the ongoing renovation work,

funding and future use of the

Berlaymont building in Brussels

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the Berlaymont building on Robert Schumann square in Brussels,
which used to house the Commission and its staff and which was contaminated with asbestos was to have
been renovated over the period 8 July 1997 to 30 June 2000 at a cost of € 324 million by the NV
Berlaymont 2000, a construction company with a capital of only € 250 372, 70 % of which is held by the
Belgian Government, the remaining 30 % being held by the Fortis and Dexia banking and insurance
companies, but that this company has not managed to carry out the work and now the building is not
expected to be handed over until 1 January 2004 at a cost of € 500 million and that the company must
have € 400 million before 31 March 2002 to repay a loan dating from 1998 as well as over € 670 million
to continue the work and that, on top of this, Fortis wants to withdraw from the arrangement?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that it has not renewed the agreement with the Belgian Government
on the future use of the building which should have been signed before 31 December 2001 and that at the
end of February the lease on the buildings in which staff are temporarily housed was extended?

3.
Is the Commission still negotiating with the Belgian Government on the possible purchase of this
building if the renovation work is completed? Will the price of the building be influenced by the endless
delays in its being handed over, the rising costs and the findings of the anti-fraud unit OLAF which are due
to be published in mid 2002?

To what extent has the budget of the European Union been affected by the significant delay in the

4.
Berlaymont building being made available?

5. What are the financial and organisational
decides not to return to the Berlaymont building?

implications for the EU if the Commission ultimately

6.

How and when will the decision on whether or not to return to the Berlaymont building be taken?