WRITTEN QUESTION P-1583/03 by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Cross-border rail travel.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: carriage of passengers, common transport policy, cross-border transport, rail transport, railway tariff, single market

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/199

The Commission has in order to improve future policy, approved under the ‘Fifth (EC) RTD Framework
Programme’, the research programme ‘Pathogenesis and improved diagnosis and control of avian influenza
infections’ (Project Reference: QLK2-CT-2002-01454). The programme will be concluded in 2005, and
aims amongst other objectives to study the development and application of marker vaccines in order to
reduce transmission of infection, particularly for their use in densely populated poultry areas.

The Commission intends to evaluate the epidemic, and Directive 92/40/EEC will be amended if
appropriate. However, a fundamental change in the control strategy, aimed at the eradication of avian
influenza as quickly as possible, is not a valid option at present.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.1992.
(2) 2003/291/EC: Commission Decision of 25 April 2003 laying down the requirements for the prevention of avian

influenza in susceptible birds kept in zoos in Belgium and the Netherlands, OJ L 105, 26.4.2003.

(2004/C 11 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1583/03

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Cross-border rail travel

Cross-border rail travel is more expensive than normal train services. This is an anomaly in a Europe
without frontiers. On top of this, it is not environmentally friendly as travel by car is being encouraged
because it is too expensive to take the train. Fares for cross-border travel are even calculated at double the
rate by the national railways, for instance on the connection between Courtrai in Belgium and Lille in
France or the connection between Tournai and Lille.

As bank charges for transfers of funds within the EU have been reduced, why does the same not

1.
apply for people travelling by train?

2. What steps will the Commission take in the near future to tackle this matter?

3. Might it not be feasible to have a train subsidy for Lille 2004, European Capital of Culture?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission agrees that higher fares for cross-border rail travel as opposed to national rail travel are
an anomaly in the internal market. This anomaly should progressively disappear with the completion of
the European railway area as provided for in the Communication from the Commission to the Parliament
‘Towards an integrated European railway area’ (1), which accompanied the legislative
and the Council
proposals put forward in the second railway package.

Fares for cross-border traffic have been determined within the framework of the Uniform Rules concerning
the Contract for International Carriage of Passengers and Luggage by Rail (CIV), which is an appendix to
the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) of 9 May 1980 (2). Cross-border fares
consist of the tariffs applicable on the network of a Member State, a boarding charge and a border
supplement. This situation is difficult to justify or maintain within the framework of an integrated
European railway area.

The Commission intends, according to its 2003 Work Programme, to table a proposal later in 2003 for a
Regulation on passengers’ rights and obligations on international rail services, which will
include
provisions concerning the information to be provided to passengers on tariffs and fares. These issues
have been and are still being discussed with the main stakeholders concerned by such provisions, i.e. the

C 11 E/200

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Community of European Railways and the consumer organisations. Furthermore, the Commission has
started preparatory work for a Directive on the gradual opening of the market for international passenger
services by rail. These initiatives should facilitate the creation of a genuine,
integrated market for rail
passenger services within the Union, which will allow railway undertakings to operate rail services where
they see business opportunities. For this, railway undertakings should be entitled to determine the level of
the fares to optimise revenues, pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 91/440/EEC (3), as amended, which
provides that railway undertakings must be managed according to the principles which apply to
commercial companies.

Under Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 (4), public authorities from neighbouring Member States can
cooperate to conclude public service contracts with railway undertakings for the provision of cross-border
rail services. These contracts can include provisions on the level of tariffs applied to such services. The
Commission deplores that this option is very rarely used by the transport authorities of neighbouring
regions of contiguous Member States.

Regarding financing for ‘Lille, Capital of Culture 2004’, the Commission’s role, as indicated by Decision
No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 establishing the
Culture 2000 programme (5), is merely to co-finance events which are proposed by the city and staged
entirely under the latter’s responsibility. Accordingly, there are no plans to grant subsidies for links to Lille
as part of the ‘2004 European Capital of Culture’ event.

(1) COM(2002) 18 final.
(2) Within the framework of the second railway package, for which the Council recently reached a political agreement
on a common position, a proposal for a Recommendation for a Council Decision, authorising the Commission to
negotiate the conditions for Community accession to the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail
(COTIF) of 9 May 1980, as amended by the Vilnius Protocol of 3 June 1999, COM(2002) 24 final.

(3) Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, OJ L 237,
24.8.1991, as amended by Council Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
2001, OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(4) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the
obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 156,
28.6.1969, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1893/91/EEC of 20 June 1991, OJ L 169, 29.6.1991.

(5) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000.

(2004/C 11 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1589/03

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE)
and Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Oil spills at the Gibraltar-Spanish Border

The press and the city councils of La Linea and Algeciras, Spain, have communicated widely about the
dumping of oil and hydrocarbon waste just inside Gibraltar national waters, with large oil spills on the
nearby Spanish coast as a direct consequence. These events occurred from August until October 2002 and
are likely to happen again.

Our questions to the Commission are therefore:

(cid:1) Has the Commission been informed by the Spanish or regional Government or the Government of

Gibraltar about this problem? Does the Commission know of the problems?