WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/03 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. High-speed rail link between Milan and Genoa and Milan and Verona.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, environmental impact, high-speed transport, project evaluation, rail network, trans-European network

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/735

(2004/C 78 E/0783)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: High-speed rail link between Milan and Genoa and Milan and Verona

In its answer of 20 June 2003 to my Written Question P-1826/03 (1) on the high-speed rail link (Lyon-
Turin-Venice-Trieste-Ljubljana), the Commission failed to respond to the questions concerning shortcom-
ings in the environmental impact assessment procedure for the Milan-Genoa and Milan-Verona links.

In particular:

(cid:1) in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna),
the hydrogeological
implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River
Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte
land, woodland and
(Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural
Gazzo) and one SRI
countryside have been underestimated;

(cid:1) in the case of the Milan-Verona line, no study is being carried out of the impact on areas of
outstanding natural beauty or importance (including ten areas subject to planning constraints in four
municipalities in the Verona district) or on the SCI in Laghetto del Frassino, and there has been no
discussion of the protection of hydrological resources and noise pollution.

What measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the EIA procedure is applied correctly
to these two links, not just in form but in substance, so that it takes account of all the above-mentioned
factors which have been excluded from the assessment?

(1) See page 727.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Under Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1983 (1), as modified by Council Directive 97/
11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (2),
identify, describe and assess in an
impact assessment’ (EIA) shall
appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case and in accordance with Articles 4 to 11, the direct
and indirect effects of a project on the following factors:

‘The environmental

(cid:1) human beings, fauna and flora;

(cid:1) soil, water, air, climate and the landscape;

(cid:1) material assets and the cultural heritage;

(cid:1) the interaction between the factors mentioned in the first, second and third indents.

Construction of lines for long-distance railway traffic are found in Annex I point 7. An environmental
impact assessment is mandatory for all projects found in Annex I. In this case, the information to be
provided by the developer should contain the requirements of Article 5 and Annex IV. The issues invoked
by the Honourable Member, namely a description of
likely to be
significantly affected such as archaeological heritage, fauna, flora, water and noise are found in Annex IV.

the environment

the aspects of

As regards the two projects, in none of these cases the authorities appear to have yet granted consent.
Therefore, a complete assessment of the compliance of the EIA procedure carried out on these cases is not
possible at this stage. In addition, as regards the Genoa-Milan project, it is not explained why and to what

C 78 E/736

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

extent the described impact and implication have been underestimated while, as regards the Milan Verona
project, the impacts on natural sites, mentioned by the Honourable Member, are not sufficiently described
and it is not clear whether a study on the impact of the project on water and noise pollution was carried
out or not.

In the light of the above, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not sufficient to draw
concrete conclusions as regards the correct application of the EIA Directive.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0784)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2265/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Deployment of a fund and provision of misleading information in order to dissuade authorities

and other large users from using cheaper software available from a competitor

Is the Commission aware of the existence of Microsoft’s internal e-mails and other documents,

1.
including ‘Microsoft Confidential’ of 16 July 2002, referred to by the International Herald Tribune?

2. Will the Commission compel Microsoft to make these documents available to it? The documents in
question indicate that the company is using a special fund of USD 180 million to persuade authorities and
large organisations to use Microsoft software rather than Linux.

3. When did/will the Commission take a decision on this?

4.
Is it possible that the Commission may impose fines for the granting of unjustified discounts, similar
to those imposed on such companies as Michelin and British Airways in the past, on account of the
information to be obtained in this way or on account of a refusal to provide it?

5. What other ways of putting a rapid and complete end to such practices within the European market
is the Commission considering?

6.
Is Microsoft’s use of members of its staff as ostensibly independent consultants or independent
business-persons, with the aim of obtaining information from competitors or of acquiring potential
customers, acceptable within the EU? Will the Commission inform the company that these practices,
which are resorted to in America, are not permissible here?

7. When does the Commission expect that measures already taken or yet to be taken will permanently
reverse Microsoft’s further progress towards a total monopoly on the European market?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 August 2003)

The Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member, and the contents of

1.
this article.

2. and 3.
The majority of the Commission’s resources in this area is currently devoted to the main
ongoing investigation against Microsoft, which relates to allegations in the fields of interoperability and
tying. Nevertheless, the Commission intends to examine Microsoft’s licensing arrangements, including the
allegations referred to by the Honourable Member, in greater detail.