WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Terni.
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Italy, action programme, local government, pollution control measures, project evaluation, reduction of gas emissions, renewable energy

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/169

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of
European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Siena are in great need of European
funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission
indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Siena has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II

programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Siena has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

(2003/C 268 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0973/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Utilisation of SAVE II and Altener II funds by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian ministry of the economy presented its
statement on the expenditure of funding made available by the European Union.

Its research showed that some local authorities were worryingly slow and inefficient in awarding projects.

The European Commission has also emphasised concern on various occasions at the under-utilisation of
European funding by local authorities.

Considering that, in particular, some local municipalities such as Terni are in great need of European
funding to limit carbon dioxide emissions, improve air quality and combat pollution, can the Commission
indicate:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted any projects under the SAVE II or Altener II

programmes;

2. whether the municipality of Terni has received funding for those projects;

3. whether that funding has been utilised?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0961/03, E-0962/03, E-0963/03,
E-0964/03, E-0965/03, E-0966/03, E-0967/03, E-0968/03,
E-0969/03, E-0970/03, E-0971/03, E-0972/03 and E-0973/03
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that for the Communes which are referred to in the
questions: Ancona, Carrara, Firenze, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena
and Terni, one SAVE II project receives Community Support, while one submitted Altener II proposal was
not selected for support.

The city of Pistoia has submitted one proposal for the Altener II programme in the Calls for

1.
proposals 2001. This proposal ‘Resred’ did not succeed and was not granted support.

2.
The city of Perugia has submitted one proposal for the SAVE programme in the Calls for proposals
2002. This proposal ‘Awereness Programme for Policy Makers in Energy Efficiency Low Income Housing
(cid:1) (APPEEL)’ was selected for support.

The budget for APPEEL will be spent during 2003 and 2004.

The contracting part will be: city of Perugia.

C 268 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

The City of Perugia participates as one of in all six contractors in this successfully evaluated proposal
APPEEL. The contract number will be 4.1031/Z/02-025 The total budget for the contract is EUR 484 406
and the total Community support is EUR 242 203. The city of Perugia’s share of the budget is EUR 42 000
and the Community support for the city of Perugia is EUR 21 000. The contract is currently being
prepared.

(2003/C 268 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0975/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Consequences of privatisation for the continued existence of the comprehensive European rail

booking system and European rail season tickets

1.
Is the Commission aware that the reservation system used in Europe for rail journeys to, through and
within other states is threatened as a result of the emergence of separate privatised railway companies, so
that even when reservation is compulsory it is no longer possible for passengers to book through tickets
from abroad in the usual way? Will this change in 2004 as a result of the introduction of a technical
specification for interoperability (TSI) in the field of passenger telematics?

2. What is the explanation for the fact that, since the new service regulations came into force on
15 December 2002, booking staff at railway stations can search for such trains in their computers, but are
surprised to find themselves unable to sell reservations on them, and cannot even supply the information
as to whether reservations can be sold separately from travel tickets and whether regional rail season
tickets such as Eurodomino, Interrail, Scanrail or Railplus are valid on such lines, leading to the passenger
having to buy tickets at full price with no right to cancel?

3.
Are reservations of seats, couchettes and sleeper berths from abroad now only possible if the rail
companies in question have concluded a separate contract with each other? In which cases have such
contracts not been concluded, and why? How many private firms are now outside the European
reservation system?

4.
Does the Commission consider it acceptable that the Swedish Tågkompaniet, which from January
2000 until the transfer to Connex in July 2003, is operating the 1 543 km long cross-border line with a
night connection between Stockholm and the Norwegian port of Narvik, gives travellers from other
countries the choice between early payment with tickets sent by post and going to a separate booking
office in Sweden, which makes reservation by travellers in a hurry practically impossible?

Does the Commission now propose to revise Regulation (EEC) 2299/89 (1) on a code of conduct for
5.
computerised reservation systems, partly in order to ensure that the comprehensive European reservation
system and the sale of fully valid rail tickets from abroad will remain in place even after the possible
separation into national rail companies?

(1) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission shares the view that information and reservation systems for international rail passenger
transport can be improved and better integrated. At present a fragmentation into several non-integrated
systems is taking place. The Commission believes this is not in the interest of passengers, as was also
expressed at the hearing the Commission organised on rail passenger rights 15 November 2002 (1).