WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Freedom of association in Romania.
Date: 2003-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, European Convention on Human Rights, Romania, accession criteria, freedom of association, regionalist party

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/153

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

the Commission indicated in its answers

As
to Written Questions E-0473/03 (1), E-0580/03 (2),
E-0583/03 (3) and E-0584/03 (4) by the Honourable Member, the process of formulating Community rules
began on the basis of Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-
European high-speed rail system (5) and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (6). These
Directives introduced a procedure for adopting technical specifications for interoperability (TSIs). The first
generation of TSIs for the high-speed system was adopted by the Commission on 30 May 2002 and has
applied to all new infrastructure and rolling stock projects
In certain
circumstances, these TSIs also apply to upgrading and renewal projects.

since 1 December 2002.

Accordingly, the network should not present any technical barriers to the various track and rolling stock
the Honourable Member mentions, due to come into service as of 2006.

The aim of the ‘High Speed Europe’ project would appear to be for the undertakings taking part to come
up with a common set of specifications with a view to ordering a new generation of high-speed trains.
If this is so, this project would contribute to the objectives of interoperability and a single market set by
the EC Treaty. However, the Commission does not yet have the information with which to answer the
Honourable Member’s questions regarding the project; moreover, that information is of a commercial
nature.

(1) See page 134.
(2) See page 149.
(3) See page 150.
(4) See page 151.
(5) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996.
(6) OJ L 110, 20.4.2001.

(2003/C 242 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Freedom of association in Romania

Following the reply of 27 June 2002 to my question E-1377/02 (1), in which the Commission states that
freedom of association is covered by the Copenhagen criteria, new developments have occurred in
Romania. The Bucharest Court of Appeal has just confirmed the decision to refuse registration to
Romania’s first regional party, the Liga Transilvania-Banat. The Court stated, inter alia, that regionalism
and subsidiarity are principles that run counter to the unitary and indivisible character of the Romanian
state.

Is the banning of a democratic political party compatible with the spirit of the accession criteria defined in
Copenhagen? Does the Commission intend to ask the Romanian authorities for an explanation?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 100.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission’s reply to question E-1377/02 noted that the Romanian constitution prohibits giving a
legal status to organisations whose goals and activities are against the principles of the Romanian state.
These principles include respect for the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Romania.

The Commission does not have the legal competence to assess whether or not the Romanian constitution,
as interpreted by this level of the Romanian court system, places an unjustified prohibition of the freedom

C 242 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

of association. However, Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Treaty on European Union (as amended by the Treaty
of Amsterdam) does state that ‘The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms …’.

It is the Commission’s understanding that the possibility exists to appeal against the ruling of the Bucharest
court. Once domestic avenues of appeal have been exhausted, and since Romania is a party to the
European Convention of Human Rights, the appropriate body to make such an assessment is the European
Court on Human Rights.

The Commission will continue to use the findings of the European Court on Human Rights as one of its
main sources when assessing respect of the Copenhagen accession criteria.

(2003/C 242 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0591/03

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Structural Funds or Cohesion Fund contribution for road building in Spain

A stretch of motorway is currently being built from Malaga to Cadiz in the Spanish province of Andalusia.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1.

Is this motorway, which runs parallel to the N-340 coastal road, being co-financed with appropri-
ations from the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund?

2. Will tolls also be charged on the co-financed stretches of this motorway?

3.

Is it permitted to charge tolls on co-financed stretches of motorway?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

There is currently a national main road, the N-340, linking Málaga and Cadiz. It splits at Fuengirola where
the more northerly part becomes the A-7 toll motorway and the more southerly part constitutes the
N-340 dual carriageway. They become one again between Marbella and Puerto Banus, where they divide
once more: as far as Guadiaro the higher-level section becomes the A-7 toll motorway and the lower level
part the N-340 main road. At Guadiaro they again join and retain the designation N-340 as far as San
Roque.

Both sections of the A-7 motorway charge tolls. They were not part-financed by Community funds.

The N-340 is toll-free. The section from Guadiaro to San Roque was part-financed by the Cohesion Fund
(85 % contribution to a total cost of just under EUR 40 million).

In any case, the Union may part-finance toll motorways. Such investments are regarded as ‘infrastructures
generating substantial net revenue’ and the rate of the Community contribution is capped and modulated
in accordance with Article 29(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) in the case of the ERDF and
with Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 (2) (as amended by Regulations (EC) Nos 1264/
1999 (3) and 1265/1999 (4)) in the case of the Cohesion Fund.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (cid:1)

OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (cid:1) OJ L 130, 25.5.1994.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1264/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of 16 May

1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (cid:1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 1265/1999 of 21 June 1999 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/1994 of

16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (cid:1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.