WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff between the European Parliament's two meeting places.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, organisation of transport, rail network, transport user

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/769

damage sustained is higher than 0,6 % of GNI. This is not the case for the damages having resulted from
the ‘Prestige’ oil spill nor for those caused by the recent earthquakes in Italy. Therefore, in these two last
cases the possible intervention by the Solidarity Fund is in any event limited by the maximum percentage
of 7,5 % of the total annual amount for assistance under the Fund, which is available for assistance under
this specific heading for all damages caused by extraordinary regional disasters in a given year.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that in the case of the damages caused by the ‘Prestige’ oil spill, a
total amount of EUR 400 million has been made available from other Community instruments, such as in
particular the Regional Fund and the Cohesion Fund, whereas in the case of the Italian earthquakes no
intervention from the Structural Fund has been provided.

(2004/C 78 E/0819)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Cancellation of the special train carrying large numbers of officials and political group staff

between the European Parliament’s two meeting places

Is the Commission aware that

1.
the train service between Brussels and Strasbourg, which are
established by treaty as the European Parliament’s two meeting places, operates only a few times a day and
that the frequency of the service has recently been cut further so that although there is an hourly service
between Brussels and Luxembourg there are very few through trains from Brussels to Luxembourg and
Strasbourg?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the serious shortage of connections has hitherto been offset by
special train No 105 for officials and political group staff on Monday mornings during the European
Parliament’s part-session weeks in Strasbourg, but that this very crowded train stopped running in
September 2003?

3.
Is it the intention that passengers who have hitherto used the direct service between the two cities
should be diverted onto the high-speed line between Brussels and Paris Nord linking up with the future
high-speed rail line between Paris Est and Nancy or onto the high-speed line from Brussels to Liege to link
up with high-speed line from Cologne to Frankfurt airport, both of which provide a more frequent service
but involve a detour with changes of train and, above all, much longer journey times?

4.
Does the Commission share the fear that, as a result of these cuts, the thousands of people who have
to travel frequently between Brussels and Strasbourg because of the EU’s existence will increasingly have to
use means of transport that cause much greater harm to the environment, such as plane and car?

As the guardian of

5.
the treaties, does the Commission believe it has a role in ensuring and
maintaining good connections between the European Parliament’s two meeting places as established in
1997 by the treaties? Or does it believe that the market should be given free rein and that train passengers
can be lumbered with finding their own solutions to the new problem they face?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2003)

is still

in service, but

The Commission has taken note of the decision by the Belgian national railway operator to cancel its
service from Brussels to Strasbourg, during the plenary sessions of the Parliament in Strasbourg. Train 105
(Brussels-Luxembourg)
the additional carriages attached to train 105 for the
Luxembourg-Strasbourg extension of the journey during the plenary sessions of the Parliament are no
longer in service as a result of maintenance works carried out in France between Metz and Strasbourg. This
train was, and still is, accessible to all passengers having a valid ticket. The Commission would like to
stress that, as already indicated in the replies to previous questions asked by the Honourable Member (1),
according to the provisions of Directive 91/440/EEC (2), railway undertakings shall be managed according
to the principles which apply to commercial companies, which have to optimise their yields and to
minimise their costs.

C 78 E/770

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission considers that a further opening of the market for international passenger services by rail
will allow railway undertakings to offer new and competitive services, which best satisfy the requirements
of the passengers. In this context, the Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member of its
intention to table soon a proposal for the gradual opening up of the market for international passenger
services by rail.

In addition, the Commission proposed on 1 October 2003 to consider as a priority project (No 28) of the
Trans-European Network the Eurocap Rail,
i.e. Brussels-Luxembourg-Strasbourg, which will enable the
modernisation of the infrastructure and allow a shorter and more comfortable journey towards 2012 (3).

(1) See the replies to Written Questions: E-1699/03, OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 128, E-1720/03 (See page 722), E-1721/

03, OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 158 and E-2293/03 (See page 402).

(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 of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, OJ L 75,
15.3.2001.

(3) Amended proposal for a Decision of the Parliament and of the Council, amending the amended proposal for a
Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96 EC on Community
guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, COM(2003) 564 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0820)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2960/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Middle East peace process

The recent resignation of the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, Mr Abu Mazen, has
made it clear that the obstacles to a genuine peace process in the Middle East remain as severe as ever.
There is no doubt that the PNA’s actions are strongly influenced by the pressures and actions of the
extreme fundamentalist groups, but it is also the case that Israel has not changed its policy.

The ‘targeted killings’ continue, aimed at alleged authors of terrorist acts (cid:1) accused of such crimes only by
the Israeli government (cid:1) without recorded investigations or proper trials. The construction continues of
the wall intended to cut off the occupied territories from the rest of the country.

In the light of this blockage of the implementation of the ‘road map’, can the Council answer the following
questions:

1. What is its position on the ‘targeted killings’?

2. Does it not consider such acts to be incompatible with the existing legal systems in the majority of the

Union’s Member States?

3.

Should it not issue a declaration stating that no-one, and even less so a government, has the right to
dictate or execute death sentences without any kind of trial?

4. What action will it take to urge the Israeli government to put an end to such practices?

5. Does it intend to denounce these crimes under the EU/Israel agreements?

6. What action will the Council take should the Israeli government refuse to put an end to these

practices?