WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council. Allocations from the Solidarity Fund.
Date: 2003-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU financing arrangements, Italy, Portugal, Spain, economic consequence, natural disaster

C 78 E/768

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The case of Thich Tri Luc illustrates that the implementation and regular update of the ten year legal
reforms plan of the Government of Vietnam is of crucial
importance with a view to enhance good
governance and a properly functioning judiciary system. These objectives are priorities for Community
cooperation with Vietnam under the Country Strategy Paper 2002-2006.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 186.

(2004/C 78 E/0818)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2940/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Council

(8 October 2003)

Subject: Allocations from the Solidarity Fund

Following the ‘Prestige’ disaster,
the European Parliament adopted two resolutions calling on the
Commission ‘as a matter of urgency, to consider using all the necessary financial instruments to tackle
the economic, social and environmental consequences and assist the economic sectors affected’ and
demanding ‘the immediate adoption of measures to alleviate the damaged occasioned to those affected,
through use of the Solidarity Fund’ (1) and to assist ‘the people in economic sectors affected by the oil
pollution and restore the environment of the regions concerned’ (2).

Commissioner Barnier’s reply to my question E-3659/02 (3) on 26 February 2003 stated that
the
Commission had received the formal request from the Spanish authorities on 14 January 2003 for
mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund to provide help with the clean-up costs of the oil slick
damage to the Galician coastline caused by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’.

The Commission recalled that the Solidarity Fund was set up to provide assistance principally in the event
of natural disasters and that it cannot be used to provide immediate financial assistance if the fairly specific
qualifying criteria outlined in the Regulation are met.

On 23 September, Community institution representatives including Budgets Commissioner Schreyer and
Council President Magri agreed to encourage mobilising the Solidarity Fund for three Member States:
Spain, Italy and Portugal. The agreement reached signed EUR 8,6 million to the Spanish regions affected
by the ‘Prestige’ disaster, EUR 47,6 million to the Italian regions recently hit by earthquakes, and
EUR 48,5 million to counteract the effects of the criminally-started forest fires in Portugal.

What estimates does the Council have as to the economic damage caused by these three disasters?

What amounts have the governments of Spain, Portugal and Italy respectively asked the EU to provide
from the Solidarity Fund to tackle the consequences of these disasters?

Why are the regions affected by the ‘Prestige’ disaster receiving less than one-fifth of what is to be received
by the regions which suffered earthquakes in Italy and forest fires in Portugal?

‘Texts Adopted’, 19.12.2002 (cid:1) P5_TA(2002)0629.
‘Texts Adopted’, 21.11.2002 (cid:1) P5_TA(2002)0575.

(1)
(2)
(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 125.

Reply

(4 March 2004)

First of all the Council points out to the Honourable Parliamentarian that of the three disasters referred in
the question only one, namely the forest fires in Portugal, can be considered as a major disaster in the
meaning of regulation 2012/2002 establishing the European Solidarity Fund, as indeed in this case the

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.