WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/04 by Willi Piecyk (PSE), Gerhard Schmid (PSE)and Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission. Trans-European Networks — development of the Danube.
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, common transport policy, hydraulic works, inland waterway transport, technical specification, trans-European network, transport network

C 84 E/824

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

At present there are no provisions obliging the Member States to give the Commission the information
requested by the Honourable Member. The Commission is not therefore in possession of the information
and would invite the Honourable Member to contact
the competent national authorities directly.
In contrast, as the Honourable Member will be able to confirm, the Directive mentioned below will give
the Commission access to such information.

The Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council due to be adopted in April 2004 on third
countries’ aircraft calling at Community airports (1) provides scope for national authorities to check the
conformity of third countries’ aircraft with international safety standards. It also provides for an exchange
of
information on this subject between the Member States and the Commission, the possibility of
grounding dangerous aircraft and a procedure whereby a decision by one Member State to ban an airline
from using its airspace can be extended throughout the Community.

(1) Not yet published.

(2004/C 84 E/0919)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0629/04

by Willi Piecyk (PSE), Gerhard Schmid (PSE)
and Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Trans-European Networks (cid:1) development of the Danube

As part of the revision of the Trans-European Networks, the Commission has proposed that development
of the Danube should be a priority project. However, the Commission’s aims in terms of the extent of
development or the depths to be reached are not clear.

In the current debate and in various documents, reference is constantly being made to the so-called ‘Van
Miert Group’ recommendations, which firstly identify a number of bottlenecks in the Danube and then
propose that improvements be made to these bottlenecks to achieve a draught of 2,5 metres.

A draught of 2,5 metres is not specifically mentioned or called for in these documents, however, and this
allows the Member States broad scope for interpretation and creates uncertainty about the extent of
development envisaged for the Danube.

Environmentally and economically speaking, the decision on this issue is of vital importance. The more the
depth increases, the greater the impact on the Danube’s ecosystem and the higher the costs.

1. With this in mind, is the possible co-financing of the Danube projects based on achieving a specific
depth?

2.

If so, what would that be?

3.
If not, does the Commission believe that the aim of generally improving the stretches defined as
bottlenecks is sufficient to be able to apply for and receive financial support as part of the Trans-European
Networks?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Rhine-Meuse-Main-Danube corridor is a major freight route connecting the North Sea with the Black
Sea. Several sections of this waterway pose navigability problems since the draught is less than 2,8 metres
at some times of year. The ‘Van Miert Group’ had recommended a minimum draught of 2,5 metres along
the entire length of the waterway to give access to vessels of up to 3 000 tonnes.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/825

In its decision of 1 October 2003 (1) the Commission proposes this transport axis as a priority project and
identifies a series of bottlenecks which need to be removed in order best to use this transport mode in the
interest of the enlarged Europe.

The Commission did not propose technical standards for the improvement of navigability for this project
due to the fact that Member States have to go through a series of legal, technical and environmental
studies in the phase of project planning before putting any specific possible conditions.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0920)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0630/04

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Official Development Assistance (ODA) of the Union: funding by Member States, actions in the

Balkans and application of conditionality and Community rules

Funding of development aid by the Union fell from 0,45 % in 1990 to 0,33 % in 2001, which is
significantly below the political commitment of 0,7 % GDP announced by the UN and the Göteborg
European Council. The Council has therefore included a binding commitment for ODA to reach 0,39 % of
GDP by 2006 in the Community acquis for the new Member States as an interim step to eventually
reaching 0,7 % of GDP.

Since in many Member States implementation of ODA is lagging behind, for instance in Greece’s five-year
programme for development cooperation and aid (2002-2006), will the Commission say:

1. What is the percentage ODA of the Union and each individual Member State for 2002 and 2003, and

how much does this amount to in millions of euros (EUR) in the Member States?

2. Why has Greece’s five-year programme for development cooperation and aid (2002-2006) for the
Balkans,
level of appropriations spent
(commitment appropriations) and what percentage of Greece’s ODA does this represent for 2002
and 2003?

the Black Sea, etc. been delayed, what

is the overall

3.

4.

Is the ODA of Member States of the Union in the Balkans linked to actions of the European Agency
for Reconstruction (1), the implementation of the CARDS (2) programme and the Stability Pact for
South East Europe, and what is the Union’s contribution within the framework of the implementation
of Greece’s ODA in the Balkans, on the basis of plans for infrastructures and public works (networks,
roads etc.)?

Is assistance being suspended in the event of a failure to respect human rights and are Community
rules being respected (for instance, on public procurement contracts etc.) by the services or bodies
which have undertaken to implement the Union’s ODA plans and programmes and, if so, which
regions are concerned?

(1) Regulation 2415/2001/EC of 10.12.2001, OJ L 327, 12.12.2001 (amending Regulations 2666/2000/EC and 2667/

2000 of 5.12.2000, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000).

(2) Programme for Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilization. Regulation 2666/2000/

EC, 5.12.2000, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Questions relating to Greece’s bilateral assistance fall outside the remit of Directorate-General External
Relations (DG RELEX).