WRITTEN QUESTION P-3649/02 by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Training and certification of railway staff.
Date: 2002-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, drivers, freedom to provide services, in-service training, rail network, rail transport, transport company, transport market, transport safety, vocational training

C 155 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

The Commission will, of course, keep the complainant informed of any developments.

2.
If it were to emerge from the information in its possession that the Greek authorities have failed to
comply with Community law, the Commission would consider whether it would be appropriate to
institute infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

(2003/C 155 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3641/02

by Ole Sørensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Film production (cid:1) Objective 2 aid

The Commission informed the Danish authorities in the spring of 2002 that Objective 2 funding cannot
be used to subsidise film production directly. Can it confirm that similar conditions have been laid down
for the Objective 2 aid being provided for a similar film project in Trollhättan in Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that the Danish Authorities submitted a proposal for
modification of the programming complement of the Danish Objective 2 programme (2000-2006) on
22nd April 2002, concerning support to the film sector.

As the scope of the proposal was only to give operating aids to film production, the Commission replied
to the Danish authorities on 15 May 2002 that the proposed activity was not eligible according to
Regulation 1783/99 on the European Regional Development Fund (1).

The Commission’s letter also included comments on the potential eligibility of different aspects of film
production as described in the note that was attached to the submission of the Danish authorities letter of
22 April. The Commission indicated that a number of actions relating to film production could be eligible,
including the creation of Small and medium-sized enterprises in the film sector, the creation of networks,
innovation and support to logistic services for the film industry.

In a letter of 10 June 2002, the Commission took the opportunity to update the Swedish authorities on its
reply to the Danish authorities. It should be recalled in this context that responsibility for the correct
implementation of the Regulations on the Structural Funds lies with the authorities in the Member State.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1783/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 1999 on the European Regional

Development Fund (cid:1) OJ L 213, 13.8.1999.

(2003/C 155 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3649/02

by Mathieu Grosch (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 December 2002)

Subject: Training and certification of railway staff

the proposal

the
Under
Commission stipulates, in Article 12(2), first subparagraph, that Member States should be responsible for
the training of train drivers and other train staff.

for the amendment of Directive 95/18/EC and Directive 2001/14/EC (1),

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/177

That article is open to different interpretations. What interpretation does the Commission place on it?

Are public railway undertakings required to provide training for staff, including non-in-house staff?

Are public railway undertakings only required to ensure training for staff, including non-in-house staff, if
the Member State instructs the railway undertakings to do so?

If the Member State instructs no other institution to provide training, are public railway undertakings then
effectively required to guarantee training for staff other than in-house staff?

(1) COM(2002) 21 final (cid:1) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002, p. 332.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2003)

train staff

Training of
is in most Member States carried out by the railway undertakings and/or
infrastructure managers themselves. New entrants and railway undertakings from other Member States that
want to exploit the market for rail transport services have in reality very small possibilities to organise this
training by their own means. The purpose of Article 12 of the proposed Directive is to oblige Member
States to ensure that necessary training of train staff is available to all railway undertakings that seek access
to the network in question.

Once the Directive is adopted it has to be implemented in all Member States. The instruments for the
implementation have to be chosen by the Member States and may vary depending on the degree in which
the rail transport market is open and the availability of alternatives for training. The objectives of the
Article must be met and in the case referred to by the Honourable Member the training schools of the
state operator must be opened to the staff of other railway undertakings as described in the article if the
services are not available on the market.

(2003/C 155 E/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3665/02

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2002)

Subject: Harmonisation of driving-distance-dependent toll systems for commercial vehicles

In the EU states there are currently various types of toll charging for use of networks of major roads. In
some states, charges are collected at permanent toll booths; others are planning to introduce modern,
nationwide systems, or are about to do so, with the technical wherewithal to calculate and charge tolls,
e.g. microwave systems (as in Italy, for instance) or GPS-based systems (as has been decided upon in
Germany, for instance).

1.
Can the systems currently under discussion be regarded as technically equivalent in terms of their
performance ranges? Can all systems provide, for instance, information on traffic management and tailback
avoidance to individual drivers with the same degree of quality?

Against the backdrop of EU enlargement and the likely increase in heavy goods traffic, which system

2.
offers the greatest technical potential, from today’s perspective, of meeting these future requirements?

3.

Are there candidate country preferences?