WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Ending of overnight motorail and other holiday train services operated by foreign railways as a result of high tariffs for the shared use of track.
Date: 2003-05-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: charges for use of infrastructure, combined transport, commercial contract, equal treatment, international transport, public service, rail transport, sustainable mobility, tourism, transport infrastructure

C 51 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

taken because fines imposed earlier had not been paid. The ‘Khartoum Monitor’ itself reports that the fines
had in fact been partially cancelled following an appeal court sentence, whilst a small fine upheld by the
court verdict had been duly paid. Some months ago Nhial Bol, the editor of the newspaper, was sentenced
to six months’
for ‘spreading false
information’ in an article accusing the government of the President Omar el Bashir of involvement in the
‘slave-trade’ in Sudan.

(or the payment of a fine of about USD 2 000)

imprisonment

Does the Council know about the repeated and systematic threats to freedom of expression on the part of
the Sudanese authorities inherent in the state of emergency, which has been in force since 1999?

What diplomatic pressure will it exert on the Sudanese authorities to ensure that the ‘Khartoum Monitor’
reopens immediately?

Does not the Council intend to make compliance with the agreement with the Khartoum government
initialled on 10 December last year (cid:1) which envisages the use of an initial fund designed for the technical
preparation of cooperation programmes, which are to be resumed as soon as a definitive peace accord is
initialled (cid:1) dependent on the immediate lifting of the state of emergency?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The Council is aware of the closure of the English-language daily ‘Khartoum Monitor’ in May this year and
of the measures taken against the editor of this newspaper.

In the framework of the EU dialogue with the Sudan, Head of Missions in Khartoum meet regularly with
government representatives to discuss open issues and to address in particular the EU concerns on
incidents such as the closure of the ‘Khartoum Monitor’. In these dialogue meetings the EU emphasises that
loses all credibility vis-à-vis the public and the international
the Government of
community if it is not complying with the basic principles of democratic and human rights. Continued
violation of these principles would have negative consequences also in the peace talks. The EU is keeping
up its pressure on the GoS to comply with the benchmarks agreed in December 2002 including freedom
of expression.

the Sudan (GoS)

Following the signature of the Machakos agreement in July last year the priority for the EU in its relations
with the Sudan has been the promotion of a comprehensive peace settlement which would also be
conducive to the enhancement of democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance.
The improvement and respect of these basic principles are a pre-condition for the normalisation of EU (cid:1)
Sudanese relations including resumption of cooperation. The lifting of the state of emergency is part of the
benchmarks package and compliance with it would be assessed in that context (1).

(1) See reply to Written Questions E-3892/02 and E-0077/03 by Marco Cappato on the same question linked to the

issue of death penalty in the Sudan.

(2004/C 51 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1699/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 May 2003)

Subject: Ending of overnight motorail and other holiday train services operated by foreign railways as a

result of high tariffs for the shared use of track

1.
Can the Commission confirm that in some EU Member States very high fees are now charged for the
use of the national railways’ infrastructure by passenger trains operated by foreign companies and that
these fees are much higher than those previously charged and probably also much higher than those
charged to domestic train companies?

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/129

Is the Commission aware that this is primarily impacting on overnight motorail services enabling
2.
holidaymakers to take their cars with them from their country of residence without having to drive long
distances on congested motorways, and on other holiday trains to winter sports resorts in the Alps and
summer holiday resorts on the Mediterranean coast?

3.
Is the Commission aware that the private company Euro Express Train Charter (EET), which was to
take over a number of holiday train services from the Netherlands railways as from 2003, would have to
pay approximately five times more to use the French railway than was previously charged and is therefore
giving up the plan? Does the Commission also realise that for the same reasons the Belgian railways SNCB/
NMBS is thinking of stopping its overnight motorail services to the border between France and Spain, to
the French Mediterranean coast and via France to Italy?

Does the Commission consider it desirable that the charges for shared use of foreign track should be
4.
so high that holiday travel by rail is no longer possible at a price affordable to passengers, as a result of
which more of this traffic will switch from trains to cars, coaches and aircraft?

5. What action is the Commission taking to tackle horrendous tariffs of this kind and secure the future
of international holiday travel by rail?

Source: ‘Op de rails’, Vol 71 May 2003.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

The tariffs for the use of the railway infrastructure in the Member States are set by the Infrastructure
Managers and have to comply with the provisions of Directive 2001/14/EC (1). The basic principle of
infrastructure charging schemes as set out in this Directive is that Railway Undertakings should only pay
for the marginal costs of the use of the infrastructure. The infrastructure managers can determine
themselves the methodology to be used for the calculation of the marginal costs. Furthermore, the
Directive allows for the application of so-called ‘mark-ups’: additional charges to be levied in case of
scarcity of infrastructure capacity, such as bottlenecks, or for the excessive usage as a result of heavy or
long freight trains. Infrastructure managers can also apply charges for the compensation of environmental
costs, though the latter shall take account of charges applied for other modes of transport, and should not
lead to a competitive disadvantage of the rail mode compared to other modes, in particular road transport.
The infrastructure manager must ensure a non-discriminatory charging scheme and can not apply different
charges on the basis of the fact that a railway undertaking is established in another Member State, as this
will have to be considered as a discrimination precluded by the EC Treaty. The Commission will act
promptly on any such discrimination as soon as it is informed of such practices. Any railway undertakings
not satisfied by the offer of the infrastructure manager is entitled to lodge an appeal at the national rail
regulatory body (set up in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2001/14/EC).

The Commission has received many complaints regarding the withdrawal of a certain number of
international services after the timetable change in December 2002. The Commission is aware of the
gradual phasing out of niche services, like car-sleeper trains, night trains and services for pilgrims, operated
by incumbent operators who claim its operation is not longer profitable, notably as a result of high
infrastructure charges. As in previous replies, the Commission would like to stress that Directive 91/440/
EEC (2) provides that Railway Undertakings shall be managed according to the principles which apply to
commercial companies. This shall also apply to rail services operated under public services obligations
imposed by the State and to public services contracts which they conclude with the competent authorities
of the Member State. These agreements can also be concluded between several Member States and railway
undertakings established in different Member States for offering international passenger services by rail, if a
commercial exploitation without state support would turn out to be impossible. The current organisation
of international passenger services by rail though can be improved, thus enabling an increase in yields and
a decrease in costs.

C 51 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The disappearance of international rail services does not contribute to the achievement of the aims of the
common Transport Policy as set out in the Commission White Paper of September 2001 (3), which
provides the maintenance of
the levels of 1998.
The Commission is preparing, as announced in its Workprogramme 2003 and requested by the Parliament
in its vote on the second railway package in January 2003, proposal for a Directive on the gradual
opening up of the market for international passenger services by rail. If adopted, this Directive should
enable the creation of a level playing field for railway undertakings to operate international passenger
services under their own responsibility in several Member States.

the rail mode in 2010 at

the modal share of

(1) Directive 2001/14/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway
infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification,
OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(2) 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 Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, OJ L 75,
15.3.2001.

(3) White Paper: European Transport Policy for 2010: Time to Decide, COM(2001) 370 final.

(2004/C 51 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Protection of a Greek island threatened with disappearance

The island of Zourafa is located in the north-east Aegean, approximately six nautical miles from the Greek
island of Samothrace. Zourafa (or ‘Ladoxera’ (oil island) as it is known by the fishermen) is the most north-
easterly point of Greek territory, and of the European Union.

Many significant archaeological finds have been located in Zourafa, such as marble columns, capitals,
remains of ancient dwellings etc., and the island is in need of urgent protection, since erosion by the sea is
likely to make it disappear completely within five to six years, according to reports in the Greek press. It is
worth noting that islets that appear in maps from 1955 (not far from Zourafa) have today completely
vanished beneath the sea. The last 40 years have seen a dramatic reduction in the size of Zourafa itself.

island (which is the furthermost border of Greek and Community territory)

Has the island of Zourafa been included in any Community initiative to protect vulnerable areas
(e.g. Natura 2000 or another initiative)? Have the Greek authorities informed the Commission that this
small
is threatened with
complete disappearance caused by sea erosion, although it has some very important archaeological
remains? Could there even now be some kind of initiative by the EU to save the island of Zourafa, and if
so, what form could it take?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Commission has not been informed by the Greek authorities in relation to the problems of coastal
erosion on the island of Zourafa. The island is not included in the Natura 2000 network nor is it proposed
as a Special Protection Area under the Birds Directive (1).

However, the Recommendation 2002/413/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2002,
concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
invites
Member States to draw up national strategies for ICZM. Among strategic elements to take into account in
these strategies, the Recommendation includes in its Chapter I, point c,
‘appropriate and ecologically
responsible coastal protection measures,
including protection of coastal settlements and their cultural
heritage’.

in Europe (2)