WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. List of priority projects — European Commission.
Date: 2003-11-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU growth strategy, common transport policy, high-speed transport, rail transport, trans-European network, transport network

C 78 E/796

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission has been telling the Greek authorities for a long time that the law in force needs to be
amended in order to be compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (1), notably regarding the scope of
public service, the rules on manning and the age requirement for vessels. The Regulation will be fully
applicable from 1 January 2004.

The Commission never planned to set up a joint committee with the Greek authorities. It will take all the
necessary measures,
including infringement proceedings if necessary, to ensure that the Regulation is
observed.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services

to maritime transport within Member States, OJ L 364, 12.12.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0846)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: List of priority projects (cid:1) European Commission

(3 November 2003)

According to media reports, the Commission submitted to the European Council meeting in Brussels a list
of 13 projects considered to be a priority for the European Union and forming part of a wider set of
29 projects entailing a total investment of EUR 220 billion. According to the same source, these will have
a 0,6 % impact on the growth of the EU’s gross domestic product and will enable 400 000 jobs to be
created each year.

The list does not include high-speed rail (TGV) links for the Iberian peninsula. This would have merited
criticism from the states concerned which, as peripheral countries, fear that they will benefit only indirectly
from the planned investments.

Given the above, will the Commission answer the following:

(cid:1) can it confirm that it submitted this list of priorities to the European Council;

(cid:1) can it confirm that the list does not include TGV links for the Iberian peninsula;

(cid:1) how can it justify this decision, particularly in terms of the principles of economic and social

cohesion, equal treatment and the completion of the internal market;

(cid:1) what measures has it taken or does it intend to take to ensure that geographically remote Member

States do not benefit in a merely indirect manner from the planned investments;

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2003)

The Commission presented its supplementary proposal for revision of the Community guidelines for the
development of the trans-European transport network (1) on 1 October 2003. The proposal includes new
priority projects which have been added to the 14 adopted on the Essen list in 1994 and the projects
proposed by the Commission in 2001 which have been endorsed by Parliament. The projects were selected
on the basis of strict criteria which were included in the text of the proposal. The list of projects which the
Commission regards as priorities consists in all of 26 projects which are due to be completed by 2020,
representing an investment of EUR 220 billion.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/797

Proposals for the Iberian high-speed rail links are included among the priority projects. The Lisbon/Porto-
Madrid high-speed line is proposed as an extension to priority project 3 (south-west European high-speed
rail link), which since 1994 has included the Madrid-Barcelona-Montpellier and Madrid-Vitoria-Dax links.
This project has also been extended northwards in the form of the Montpellier-Nîmes and Dax-Bordeaux-
Tours sections. Furthermore, the entire Iberian peninsula high-speed rail network (project 19), including
the Vigo-Porto link, has been proposed as a priority project since 2001.

The projects regarded as priorities also include the Sines-Madrid-Paris rail freight link (project 16), which
includes the Sines-Badajoz railway line and the Pyrenees rail crossing. All of these rail projects help to
interconnect Portugal and Spain and to link them to the rest of the trans-European network.

The Iberian peninsula will also be able to benefit from the potential of the ‘motorways of the sea’, which
are also included as a priority project (project 21) in the Commission’s proposal of 1 October 2003.

In addition, in the framework of the European growth initiative launched by Mr Prodi, the European
Council of 16 and 17 October 2003 invited ‘the Commission, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the
relevant formations of the Council to establish, without prejudice to the priorities identified in the
Commission proposal, a “quick-start programme” identifying a list of projects in an enlarged Union’. The
‘quick-start programme’, adopted by the Commission on 11 November 2003 (2), does not call
into
question the priorities which the Commission has already defined, which must be adopted by Parliament
and the Council by co-decision procedure, but is rather an initiative to give a quicker start to a number of
advanced cross-border links to act as a fulcrum for all of these projects, all of which retain priority status.
The projects included in this programme include the Lisbon-Madrid, Vigo-Porto and Perpignan-Figueras
high-speed train links and the motorways of the sea. The Commission will present its proposal for the
‘quick-start programme’ in its report to the European Council in December 2003 on the European growth
initiative.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
(2) COM(2003) 690 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0847)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3266/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(4 November 2003)

Subject: Impact of genetically modified crops on nature

Week 42 saw articles published e.g. in The Financial Times and on the BBC’s website about the sensational
findings of an investigation into how far genetically modified crops impact on nature. The investigation
was based on trials in England and documents that fields with GM crops in many cases destroy natural
conditions to an even greater extent than conventional farming. It showed, for example, that there were
fewer birds, butterflies and bees in the vicinity of fields containing GM crops when compared with fields
containing conventional crops.

This being so, will the Commission explain how these frightening findings affect EU policy with particular
reference to authorisation of GM products? Does it intend, in the light of these findings, to carry out new
studies into GM production and its adverse impact on nature and does it believe that the rules for
co-existence between GM crops and non-GM crops ought to be reviewed in the light of these findings?
Lastly, will it indicate how GM producers are to be made financially liable for the negative changes they
are imposing on nature?