WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Continued obstruction of shipping on the Danube as a result of the 1999 war in Serbia.
Date: 2002-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, Serbia, engineering structure, enlargement of the Union, financial aid, inland waterway shipping, international waterway, pre-accession aid, transport capacity, war damage

C 192 E/40

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

appropriate, with non-governmental organisations (NGOs), in order to ensure that care will be provided
upon return of the child. In any case, a minor may not be returned to a third country where this return
would be contrary to the Convention relating to the status of refugees, the European Convention on
Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms or the Convention against Torture and other cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading treatment or Punishment or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In the particular case of Romanian minors in Belgium, the Commission is informed that such co-operation
has indeed taken place.

In Bucharest and other large cities in Romania there are reception centres for minors, where street children
and other children in need of protection can be hosted under the responsibility of the local Child
Protection Department, sometimes in co-operation with NGOs. In these centres, the legal and social
situation of the children is analysed with a view to re-integrating them into their families or, if this is not
possible, to developing a care plan. Bilateral agreements between Romania and Member States have been
concluded or are being negotiated on this issue.

The Commission continues to support the Romanian Government in its efforts to improve childcare
policies. At present a EUR 25 million PHARE programme is being implemented in Romania, providing
funding for the closure of large old-style institutions, for developing alternative local child protection
services and for a public awareness campaign on prevention of abandonment and re-integration of
children into natural or foster families. As part of this programme, reception centres are eligible for
financing. This programme will be followed by a similar programme which will start soon and for which
EUR 10 million have been committed.

(1) Council Resolution of 26 June 1997 on unaccompanied minors who are nationals of third countries (cid:1) OJ C 221,

19.7.1997.

(2003/C 192 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2018/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Subject: Continued obstruction of shipping on the Danube as a result of the 1999 war in Serbia

1.
Can the Commission confirm that of the three bridges destroyed in the 1999 war which spanned the
Danube between the centre of the Serbian town Novi Sad and Petrovaradin on the south bank, only the
middle bridge, the Varadinski Most joining Bulevar Mihajla Pupina and Beogradska Ulica, has been
replaced by a new bridge, while the wide bridge in the west near Bulevar Oslobodjenja has been replaced
by a heavily used pontoon bridge (Most na Barzama near Ulica Maksima Gorkog) and the combined road
and rail bridge in the east has been replaced by a temporary rail bridge situated to the west of the ruins?

2. What are the effects of the presence of a pontoon bridge and a temporary bridge in Novi Sad on
inland waterway transit traffic between the Netherlands, Germany and Austria (EU Member States) and the
applicant countries Slovakia and Hungary, on the one hand, and Romania and Bulgaria to the south and
east, on the other?

3.
As a result of war damage, are there places other than Novi Sad (cid:1) for example between Smederevo
and Kovin to the east of Belgrade (cid:1) where the width of passage or the headroom, and hence the permitted
volume of shipping, is still smaller, as a result of damage, temporary bridges or shipwrecks, than the
dimensions imposed by the locks in the dam in the Iron Gates (Djerdap) between Kladovo in Serbia and
Dobreta-Turnu Severin in Romania?

4. What are the prospects of restoring the capacity of the Danube for shipping and that of the
connections between its banks to their full pre-1999 levels?

5.
How will the activities referred to in question 4 be financed? What responsibility has the EU taken
for them and what responsibility will it still take, in view inter alia of the importance of the Danube as the
main route for transporting freight within the EU in its likely future volume?

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/41

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2002)

Three bridges in Novi Sad were destroyed by NATO airstrikes in April 1999. The road/rail bridge
1.
(Zezelj) and the larger road bridge (Petrovaradin) were reconstructed by former Federal Republic of
Yougoslavia (FRY) President Milosevic, before the September 2000 elections. Following the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia’s cooperation with the implementation of the Danube Commission’s (largely
Community-funded) project to restore navigation (cid:1) by removing debris and unexploded ordnance (cid:1) the
Commission has agreed to proceed with a Community-funded project to reconstruct the third, and largest,
bridge (Sloboda). Contracts for this work, the largest single Community-funded project in Serbia, were
signed on 23 July and work will begin in autumn, as the clearance project is completed. The major
reconstruction / engineering work will last until 2004. The pontoon bridge which is currently carrying this
traffic will be removed, at the latest, at that time.

2.
Obviously, the presence of the pontoon bridge, and the charges for its opening, is an obstacle to the
‘free international navigation’ foreseen in the Belgrade ‘Danube’ Convention. However, the continued
presence of the bridge, the schedule for its opening, and the associated charges, were agreed between the
competent body (cid:1) the Danube Commission (cid:1) and the FRY. In practice, with the implementation of the
November 2001 Aide Memoire between the Danube Commission and the FRY, there is a regular opening
schedule which has enabled traffic to already increase, to the benefit not only of the countries mentioned
by the Honourable Member but all ten states bordering the Danube and, indeed, the wider region.

The Commission is not aware of this as it is, rather, an issue for the Danube Commission, the
3.
international organisation which is responsible for navigation on the Danube. In any event,
it is the
responsibility of the State through which the international waterway passes, at that particular point, to
remove any such obstacles as might exist and to ensure that conditions are respected. The decision to
provide external financing for the removal of obstacles at Novi Sad is due to the exceptional circumstances
of that damage.

As regards shipping capacity, there has been some diversion to other forms of transport during the
4.
period of blockage of navigation. The Danube Commission records, however, increasing use of the Danube
since the navigable channel was opened at the end of last year. Concerning connections between the banks
of
the bridges are already rebuilt and, while awaiting the
reconstruction of the third bridge a pontoon bridge remains in place.

the river, as explained above,

two of

5.
The importance of the restoration of navigation on the Danube is clearly demonstrated by the
political and financial support which has been provided by the Commission. The Community is providing
up to 85 % (cid:1) up to EUR 22 million of the cost of the Danube Commission’s project for the clearance of
the fairway of the Danube which is nearing completion. Community funding has also been agreed for the
reconstruction of the Sloboda bridge, for an amount of EUR 34 million. More generally, the Commission is
keen to encourage the possibilities of inland waterway transport, in particular on the Danube, in order to
develop transport links between the candidate countries and existing Member States. The ISPA (1) financial
instrument is available, in the ten candidate countries of Central, Eastern and SouthEastern Europe, to
finance transport infrastructure projects relating to the priority Pan-European Transport Corridors of which
the Danube River (Corridor VII) is an important part. The Commission is in fact, at present, considering an
application from the Romanian authorities for ISPA support for the improvement of the navigability of the
Danube. Similar projects which are well prepared and fully meet the criteria of the ISPA Regulation would
be welcomed from other ISPA beneficiary countries.

the Honourable Member

For further information on the progress of the clearance project and more generally on the present state of
Danube navigation,
referred to the Danube Commission’s website:
is
www.dunacom.org and to the Commission’s press release and background information from 29 November
2001 (2). For further information on the Sloboda bridge project, the Honourable Member is referred to the
website of the European Agency for Reconstruction (which implements Community assistance in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia): www.ear.eu.int and in particular to the press release of 23 July 2002 (3)
concerning the signature of the contracts for the Sloboda bridge.

(1)
(2)
(3)

Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession.
IP/01/1689.
IP/02/1123.