WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/02 by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerdà-La Tour de Carol-Toulouse railway line.
Date: 2002-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, France, Spain, common transport policy, eligibility criteria, rail network, rail transport, trans-European network, transport lines

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/211

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

As Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-
education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’
duration (1) was not transposed by Greece within the specified time, the Court of Justice ruled on the
failure to comply in a judgment of 23 March 1995 (case C-365/93 ‘Commission versus Greece’). When
Greece failed to comply with this judgment by informing the Commission of the measures for transposing
the Directive, the latter initiated new infringement proceedings on the basis of Article 228 of the EC Treaty
with a request for the fixing of penalty payments. After a Court hearing on the matter, Greece gave
notification of Presidential Decree No 165 of 23 June 2000 transposing Directive 89/48/EEC. Since Greece
had thus responded to the complaint about failure to transpose the Directive, the Commission was
prompted to stop the Court proceedings.

The Commission’s examination of Presidential Decree No 165 of 23 June 2000, together with the
complaints which it had received, nevertheless showed that the directive had not been correctly transposed
and that it had not been properly applied. New infringement proceediings against Greece were thus
opened, this time for non-compliance of Presidential Decree No 165/2000 with Directive 89/48/EEC and
for wrong application of the latter.

Greece was given notification of a letter of formal notice on 27 July 2001, and this was followed on
21 December 2001 by a supplementary letter of formal notice in the light of further information from
complainants.

The Greek authorities gave their comments to the Commission in letters on 12 October 2001,
13 March 2002 and 17 April 2002. The last two letters contained draft versions of texts which would
apparently remedy certain complaints in connection with the non-compliance of Greek law with Directive
89/48/EEC. However, inasmuch as these texts have not been adopted and since there still remain some
important complaints with regard in particular to the wrong application of the Directive, the Commission
decided on 26 June 2002 to send Greece a reasoned opinion.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(2002/C 301 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1693/02

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerdà-La Tour de Carol-Toulouse railway line

The December 2001 Commission White Paper on transport in the period up to 2010 establishes three
priorities for the railways: to revitalise railways as a strategic sector, to eliminate railway ‘bottlenecks’
(involving the development of a secondary network to counter the risk of congestion on main lines), and
to promote Structural Fund investment in order to improve access to the trans-European network by
means of an amendment to the financing rules so as to allow maximum Community participation (up to
20 % in the case of cross-border rail projects which cross natural barriers or eliminate railway bottlenecks).

It should be pointed out that the White Paper acknowledges trans-Pyrenean communications within the
trans-European network to be highly restricted (two road passes and two rail ones), particularly by
comparison with the situation in the Alps (six road and seven rail passes).

In any event,
it would seem that the proposal put forward by the French and Spanish Governments
includes only (as regards rail transport) the Zaragoza-Canfanc-Pau line; there is no mention whatsoever of
the Barcelona-Puigcerdà-La Tour de Carol-Toulouse line.

In December 2001 the Spanish Parliament’s Joint Committee on the European Union adopted a resolution
on the White Paper in which it calls for the list of major projects to include more than one rail crossing in
the Pyrenees, in order to ensure that the latter remain passable.

C 301 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Does the Commission not consider that the Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerdà-La Tour de Carol-Toulouse line
meets all the eligibility criteria laid down in the White Paper?

Has the Commission considered the possibility of including more than one rail crossing through the
Pyrenees amongst the major projects?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2002)

The existing Barcelona-Vic-Ripoll-Puigcerda-La tour de Carol-Toulouse railway line does not appear on the
maps of the trans-European network in Annex I to Decision 1962/96/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 (1). This single-track mountain line which runs along ridges at high altitude does not
appear to be suitable for development as a major rail link.

On the other hand, in order to facilitate rail traffic across the Pyrenees, the Commission considers it a
priority to continue with the specific TGV South project endorsed by the Essen European Council in 1994
and including the Madrid-Barcelona-Montpellier and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax lines. It also believes that given
the substantial growth in road traffic between the Iberian peninsula and the rest of Europe, a new high-
capacity rail route across the Pyrenees will eventually need to be developed, although the route it will take
is not yet known.

The Commission proposal of 2 October 2001 (2), amending Decision 1692/96/EC, includes in the list of
specific projects set out in Annex III a high-capacity rail link across the Pyrenees. Parliament approved the
new Annex III list in the opinion it adopted on 30 May 2002 (second reading).

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2) OJ C 362 E, 18.12.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1700/02

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Implementation in Greece of

the Community scheme for production aid for cotton in the

2001-2002 marketing year in accordance with Regulation 1051/2001

Some cotton producers have ignored or infringed Community regulations on cotton production, thereby
compromising and jeopardising producers who comply with the regulations.

Furthermore, the reform of the Community regulatory framework governing the cotton aid scheme was
completed much later than the production period and, in any case, after the fields had been prepared and
the cotton seed sown.

The Commission’s proposal for a regulation also differed in many substantive respects from the text finally
adopted by the Council (cid:1) Regulation (EC) 1051/2001 (1) (cid:1) causing confusion and problems for
producers.

In view of the above, what measures will the Commission take to protect law-abiding producers from the
damage they may suffer as a result of the conduct of producers who do not comply with the rules or try
to commit fraud?

How will it ensure that the legitimate expectations of producers are not cruelly frustrated by the late
publication of the reformed regulatory framework for the cotton aid scheme?

Will
the Commission take measures either of a corrective nature (changes to those points in the
regulations which are unclear) or of a transitional nature (adoption of transitional arrangements for the
2001 harvest where the late publication of the regulations caused problems for producers)?

(1) OJ L 148, 1.6.2001, p. 3.