WRITTEN QUESTION P-1924/03 by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission. Violation of the agreement signed by Switzerland and the EU on 21 June 1999 on the transport of goods and passengers.
Date: 2003-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Switzerland, agreement (EU), carriage of goods, carriage of passengers, destination of transport, equal treatment, land transport, transport regulations

C 51 E/160

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the importance of the Breña II dam for the economic and social development
of the Andalucia region in addressing the water shortage as well as contributing to overall hydraulic
regulation within the Guadalquivir river basin.

The Project, which involves a total eligible cost of EUR 159 757 001 was presented to the Commission
Directorate General for Regional Policy (DG REGIO) on 5 October 2001. The Spanish Authorities asked
for financing 50 % of the cost through Regional funds. DG REGIO sent the project to the Directorate
General for the Environment (DG ENV) on 12 October 2001, and additional information was also sent on
16 April 2002. Since then, exchanges of information and several discussions have taken place between DG
REGIO, DG ENV and the Spanish Authorities in order to develop and understand some technical and
management issues in need of clarification.

In addition, the Commission would like to underline that the Spanish Authorities have asked the opinion
of
the Commission under Article 6.4 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC, of 21 May 1992, on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

Finally, the Commission is completing the analysis of all the information that has been received in order to
ensure that Community environmental
the
Commission intends to finalise its assessment and to give a reply to the Spanish Authorities.

legislation is properly applied. Within the near future,

(2004/C 51 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1924/03

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject: Violation of the agreement signed by Switzerland and the EU on 21 June 1999 on the transport of

goods and passengers

The Swiss Federal Council established, by decree of 20 September 2002, a preferential treatment scheme
for part of domestic HGV traffic. Thanks to these rules, Swiss vehicles travelling to or from southern
Switzerland with a special authorisation and a yellow ‘S’ sign on a red background can avoid the St
Gotthard and St Bernard stopping areas (compulsory for all vehicles) and gain direct access to the tunnel,
thereby considerably reducing waiting time. Moreover, these vehicles are not required to comply with the
alternate one-way system in the St Bernard tunnel (as if safety problems did not apply to them).

Swiss drivers can in fact take advantage of this preferential treatment with regard not only to domestic
travel, but also (cid:1) in most cases (cid:1) to travel to Italy and northern Europe since there is no actual check on
the destination of the goods. In other words, Swiss hauliers travelling to Italy can save an average of 4-8
hours on each journey and plan their work programme in excellent conditions while respecting delivery
times. Moreover, EU road hauliers wishing to deliver goods to southern Switzerland cannot possibly
compete with local carriers since they do not enjoy the same advantages.

Does the Commission not consider that this decree is contrary to the EU-Switzerland agreement of
21 June 1999 (1) on the transport of goods and passengers,
in particular Article 32 thereof, which
prohibits direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of the carrier’s nationality, the vehicle’s place of
registration or destination?

(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002, p. 91.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/161

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Swiss Federal Ordinance of 20 September 2002 referred to by the Honourable Member lays down a
special scheme for certain domestic transport operations within Switzerland only and imposes a minimum
fine of 500 Swiss francs for misuse of the ‘S’ sign. Swiss hauliers importing and exporting goods do not
benefit from the ‘S’ scheme. According to the information available to the Commission, the Swiss police
carry out rigorous checks which, together with the high fine, mean that the regulations are strictly adhered
to.

The Commission has examined the regulations and concluded that there does not seem to be any
discrimination within the meaning of the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland on land
transport since Swiss hauliers carrying out cross-border haulage are affected by the ‘S’ scheme in the same
way as EU hauliers. In addition, the Agreement between the Community and Switzerland does not apply
to Swiss domestic traffic (Article 2(1) of the Agreement). This haulage is therefore not covered by the
Agreement.

Furthermore, the Ordinance specifies that the ‘S’ scheme applies only for about 23 % of the year. During
that period, about 15 % of lorries benefit from the scheme, the proportion of lorries which benefit from
the ‘S’ scheme during the year as a whole therefore being 3 to 5 %. It should also be pointed out that the
alternating one-way traffic flow in the St Bernard tunnel also applies to heavy goods vehicles displaying the
‘S’ sign.

(2004/C 51 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1929/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

(13 June 2003)

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes.
European Coalition on Oil
in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly
church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been
forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil
extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil
brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care,
while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mi 24
helicopter gunships and T 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Council to influence the Sudanese government and the oil
companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU doing to
persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in Sudan?

Reply

(7 October 2003)

The EU is aware that
fierce fighting between
the oil-rich Southern Sudan has been the region of
Government forces and the SPLA. Some escalation, as the Honourable Member of Parliament pointed out,
had severe consequences for the population and impeded humanitarian access to the southern region. The
EU expressed deep concern over these unacceptable situations and called for unrestricted, immediate and
unlimited access by international aid agencies whenever the civilian population was directly or indirectly
affected by the conflict. Furthermore, the EU recalled the humanitarian principle that civilian populations
must be protected from the consequences of military operations and urged both parties to the conflict to
put into effect immediately the December 1999 TCHA Agreement on Implementation of Principles
Governing the Protection and Provision of Humanitarian Assistance to War Affected Civilians.