WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Transit visas in the EU.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, transit, traveller

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/205

(2004/C 65 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2730/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Compliance with European legislation in connection with the privatisation of VOEST in Austria

Media reports suggest that agreements exist between individual interested parties in connection with the
imminent privatisation of VOEST via the stock exchange. The Austrian newspaper ‘Der Standard’ reported
on 1 September 2003 an alleged ‘secret meeting’ between existing Austrian VOEST shareholders for the
purpose of allocating amongst themselves the maximum possible stockholding when the shares are sold.
Those invited to this meeting are said to include the managing committee of the Vienna stock exchange,
banking representatives, a member of the VOEST management board, a member of the VOEST works
council and politicians from Upper Austria.

Are such internal agreements in the run-up to the privatisation of a public-sector undertaking via the stock
exchange in conformity with European law?

If not, what countermeasures will the Commission be taking?

Does EU law contain provisions preventing the disposal of a public sector undertaking at less than its
value and hence to the detriment of the public interest?

Does a general legal framework exist at EU level that compels Austria to privatise VOEST or other public-
sector undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission does not have enough information at its disposal to offer the Honourable Member a
satisfactory answer. In the absence of details and established facts which would enable the Commission to
carry out
the necessary investigation into possible breaches of Community stock exchange law or
Community competition law, the Commission regrets that it is unable at the moment to reply to the first
and third questions. It therefore asks the Honourable Member to provide it with whatever information he
has on this matter.

The Commission cannot answer the second question while the first question remains unanswered.

With regard to the fourth question, Article 295 of the EC Treaty gives the Member States the option of
determining whether a given undertaking should belong to the public sector or the private sector.

(2004/C 65 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Transit visas in the EU

Is the Commission aware that some Member States are adopting a new practice and requiring travellers to
purchase a Transit Visa costing GBP 40 for ‘not landing’? Could the Commission indicate whether it
believes that (a) this charge is wholly unjust and (b) it threatens to distort the travelling patterns of
travellers as they move through the EU and try to avoid those Member States?

C 65 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 October 2003)

The Commission is not aware of the facts referred to by the Honorable Member. Since it does not have the
information to carry out the necessary investigation into the problem raised, it regrets that it is at present
unable to answer the question.

(2004/C 65 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2749/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Refund of the German HGV toll (LKW-Maut) by the government of the Flemish Region

The government of the Flemish Region plans to provide compensation for lorry drivers operating in
Germany by refunding them part of the cost of the Eurovignette. Lorry drivers who can prove that they
have driven for at least 30 days or at least 60 days on the German road network are refunded 1/12 or
2/12 of the cost of the Eurovignette respectively. This refund is in addition to the existing rules under
which to 2/12 of the Eurovignette costs are refunded. In practice this will therefore mean that some
Flemish road haulage operators recover one-third of the cost of the Eurovignette. Furthermore, the Belgian
Federation of Road Haulage Operators, FBETRA, is advising its members to pass on the cost of the HGV
toll to their clients.

Does the refund of part of the cost of the Eurovignette by the Flemish Region comply with European law?

Does this refund create a precedent? In other words, can Member States refund environmental taxes levied
in other Member States to35 300 private individuals or legal entities?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

The Commission has no information regarding a plan by the Flemish Region to reimburse part of the
charges paid by consignors who use German motorways.

In principle, the Commission needs detailed information before it can comment on the admissibility of
reimbursing road user charges in a Member State. Such a measure is in any event liable to constitute State
aid within the meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty, given that a measure of this kind involving a
transfer of public resources and conferring an advantage upon certain undertakings may threaten to distort
competition and affect trade between Member States. All Member States must notify the Commission in
advance of any new aid, and the Commission will, as appropriate, assess the aid’s compatibility with the
internal market.

(2004/C 65 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2750/03

by Jan Dhaene (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject: Cycles as accompanied baggage on international trains

During my holidays I experienced problems taking my bicycle with me on international trains and TGVs.
On a large number of international trains passengers are no longer authorised to travel with a bicycle.
Some of these routes are even co-funded by the EU under the TENs-T programme.