WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Major expansion of the airport of the Bulgarian capital Sofia near urban neighbourhoods and residential centres and failure to comply with environmental standards.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU control, airport, environmental impact, pre-accession aid, project evaluation, town planning

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/173

4. What does the Commission intend to do to ensure that a more coordinated approach is taken to
ticket sales and reservations, so that reservations can be made in good time for destinations in the Member
States at least and, where possible, in the applicant countries, and tickets for the whole of the journey to
be made can be bought together in the case of as many destinations as possible?

5. Will the Commission provide a solution to these problems in the proposal it plans to table, as stated
in the answers to questions E-0518/02 and E-0520/02 (1) of 18 April 2002, on the rights and obligations
of international rail travellers?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 159.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2033/02, E-2034/02 and E-2035/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission agrees entirely with the Honourable Member about the shortcomings of cross-border rail
travel. That is one of the reasons why the Commission has proposed that all such services operated with
public service obligations should be subject to rigorously monitored and time limited public service
contracts, let on the basis of open, competitive tender.

In response to Parliament’s concerns, the revised proposal (1) includes stronger powers for authorities to
extend integration arrangements (including pricing and ticketing) across national borders.

A consultation process with the industry started recently on whether computerised reservation systems
should be revised in order to achieve a better travel-information to passengers and to ease reservations on
international rail transport. On the result of this consultation, the Commission will consider whether
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computerized reservation
systems (2) should be revised.

Within the framework of Directive 2001/16/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001
on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (3) a TSI (technical specification on
interoperability) will be developed on passenger Telematics from 2004 onwards.
In this way travel
information and ticketing systems should be made interoperable.

As far as the refund policy of railway undertakings is concerned the Commission will take up this issue in
the initiative to promote rail passenger rights as announced in the 2nd railway package (4). The
Commission will encourage the railway industry to establish voluntary service quality commitments and
the Commission is planning to present a proposal for a regulation on passenger rights in 2003.

(1) Amended proposal for a Regulation on action by Member States concerning public service requirements and the
award of public service contracts in passenger transport by rail, road and inland waterway, OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002.

(2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989.
(3) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.
(4) COM(2002) 18 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament,

‘Towards an

integrated railway area’.

(2003/C 28 E/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Major expansion of the airport of the Bulgarian capital Sofia near urban neighbourhoods and

residential centres and failure to comply with environmental standards

1.
Is the Commission aware that in plans for the building, extension and relocation of airports sites are
now sought which are further away than in the past from large towns and their highly urbanised

C 28 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

surroundings, with the aim of preventing noise and air pollution for large groups of residents and reducing
the chance of large numbers of victims in the event of an aircraft crashing?

2.
Is the Commission also aware of the plans drawn up in 1996 by the British company Sir William
Halcrow & Partners, with no regard for the objectives described in point 1, to extend the airport Aerogara
Sofia, which is situated near the capital of the applicant country Bulgaria, with, inter alia, a second east-
west runway situated parallel with, and north of, the current runway and planned to extend much further
east, so that the Sofia districts of Vasil Levski and Hristo Botev in the north-east, the nearby town of
Brazjdebna and the residential areas Nova Mahala and Dolni Bogrov to the east of the extended airport will
be subject to nuisance and danger?

3.
Does the Commission consider the way in which the environmental impact assessment was carried
out in September 1996, with the arguments of local authorities and non-governmental organisations being
ignored and the noise levels and other effects of a new runway and terminal being studied in isolation,
with no consideration of the cumulative effects of these and of activities in the rest of the airport and
without envisaging any solution to the existing environmental problems or taking any account of
applications from alternative locations, to be compatible with the attitude that might be expected of a
(future) EU Member State?

4.
Does the Commission believe that the European Union would have reasons to express reservations as
to its involvement in this project, given that the environmental impact assessment for the new runway,
which was approved subject to twenty conditions in April 2001, states that the water purification system
has shortcomings and that anti-freeze products would drain into the ground, surface water and subsoil,
that no consideration has been given to the fact that the runway crosses the Via Aristotelis, a bird
migration route, that the approach route will pass over the city, that night flights will be authorised
between 11 p.m. and 6.30 a.m., that the noise pollution protection plan required by the Ministry of the
Environment has been postponed until April 2003, that there is to be no political debate on this plan and
that the condition laid down in approving the environmental impact assessment (cid:1) presentation of an
action plan for public controls by 15 May 2001 (cid:1) has not been met?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

1.
The Commission is aware of the different considerations cited by the Honourable Member with
regard to the siting of airports. In all such developments a balance has to be struck between the need to
improve airport infrastructures, and thus improve mobility and encourage economic development, and the
potential effects on the local environment and population.

The original master plan to develop Sofia airport and more recent detailed designs are known to the
2.
Commission and include the proposed construction of a new terminal and related infrastructure as well as
a new runway.

Projects submitted for ISPA assistance must be subject to an assessment of environmental impact
3.
similar to that provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects
on the environment (1).

The request for ISPA co-financing for the Sofia airport project was based on an EIA carried out for the
airport master plan in 1996. Although the Commission considered that the main elements had been
covered and that the necessary documentation had been submitted in order to satisfy the requirements of
the ISPA Regulation (2) it insisted that new environmental impact assessments be carried out, in view of the
time that had elapsed since the initial EIA, for all aspects of the project covering the new runway, new
terminal and related infrastructure.

The Commission is satisfied that these new EIAs conform with the requirements of the EIA Directive,
including the requirements for public consultation.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/175

Concerns about the potential environmental impact of this project have already been addressed by
4.
the Bulgarian authorities, and points raised during the public consultations have been incorporated into
the development consent procedure. The Commission will monitor
the
commitments made by the Bulgarian authorities in the course of the normal procedures for the follow-
up of projects assisted under ISPA.

the implementation of

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) 1267/1999 of 21 June 1999 establishing an Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-

accession, OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/199)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2045/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Subject: Balance sheets

Which Member States produce some sort of estimate of assets and liabilities for each sector of the
economy, including the public sector?

For those Member States that produce such a balance sheet for the public sector, will the Commission give
the latest available figures for assets, liabilities and net worth?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

Under the European System of Accounts (ESA95) transmission programme (1), all Member States are
‘Balance sheets for financial assets and liabilities, consolidated and non-
required to produce sectoral
consolidated’ save for three Member States which have a derogation. The Member States that have this
derogation are Greece, Ireland and Luxembourg (first transmission in 2005).

Some data on financial assets have been made available; those for general government have yet to be
published by Eurostat.

(1) Table 7 of Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national

and regional accounts in the Community, OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.

(2003/C 28 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2061/02

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(11 July 2002)

Subject: Controls on food products

What is the Commission doing to put pressure on Member States to ensure tighter controls on food
products which enter from outside the EU, in particular in relation to meat, in order to ensure we do not
see a recurrence of a disease such as Foot and Mouth?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

With reference to the question raised by the Honourable Member, the Commission wishes to refer to the
provisions of Council Directive 72/462/EEC of 12 December 1972 on health and veterinary inspection
problems upon importation of bovine animals and swine and fresh meat from third countries (1), and
Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation
of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (2).