European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2023 on large transport infrastructure projects in the EU — implementation of projects and monitoring and control of EU funds (2022/2021(INI))
Date: 2023-06-13
Institutions: Committee on Budgetary Control, Committee on Transport and Tourism, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU investment, EU programme, co-financing, common transport policy, sustainable mobility, trans-European network, transport infrastructure, transport network, transport safety








C_202400481EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C













C/2024/481


23.1.2024






P9_TA(2023)0229
Large transport infrastructure projects in the EU
European Parliament resolution of 13 June 2023 on large transport infrastructure projects in the EU — implementation of projects and monitoring and control of EU funds (2022/2021(INI))
(C/2024/481)



The European Parliament,






—


having regard to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2093 of 17 December 2020 laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2021 to 2027 (1),










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 February 2021 establishing the Recovery and Resilience Facility (2),










—


having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (3) (Financial Regulation),










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 establishing the Connecting Europe Facility and repealing Regulations (EU) No 1316/2013 and (EU) No 283/2014 (4),










—


having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661/2010/EU (TEN-T Regulation) (5),










—


having regard to the Commission proposal of 14 December 2021 for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 and Regulation (EU) No 913/2010 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 (COM(2021)0812),










—


having regard to Special Report 10/2020 of the European Court of Auditors of 16 June 2020 entitled ‘EU transport infrastructures: more speed needed in megaproject implementation to deliver network effects on time’,










—


having regard to Review No 05/2021 of the European Court of Auditors of 25 November 2021 entitled ‘The EU framework for large transport infrastructure projects: an international comparison’,










—


having regard to its previous decisions and resolutions on discharge to the Commission for the years 2017 (6), 2018 (7), 2019 (8) and 2020 (9),










—


having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Transport and Tourism,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0181/2023),










A.


whereas the EU’s common transport policy was established to create a common transport area across Europe; whereas its priority operational objective since 2013 has been to build a ‘core network’ by 2030, and a ‘comprehensive network’ by 2050; whereas these networks comprise all modes of transport, including maritime, rail, road and air;










B.


whereas the Member States bear responsibility for implementing projects in the network and this is governed by the TEN-T Regulation; whereas at EU level, responsibility for devising and implementing transport policy lies with the Commission;







Large transport projects in the EU










1.


Highlights that the Union’s transport policy aims to ensure the smooth, efficient, safe and free movement of people and goods throughout the EU by means of integrated networks using all modes of transport, aiming to provide efficient, interoperable, safe and environmentally friendly mobility solutions within the EU and to create the conditions for a competitive industry generating growth and jobs; highlights that the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) policy is key to the good functioning of the single market and the EU’s socioeconomic and territorial cohesion, as well as to fostering the connectivity and accessibility of all regions in the EU and achieving the European Green Deal’s objectives; recalls that large infrastructure projects play a crucial role in delivering on the TEN-T policy and are of instrumental importance in removing bottlenecks and eliminating missing links, including on cross-border sections; recalls that large transport infrastructure may also contribute to the sustainable development of European regions by enhancing green connectivity, which contributes to protecting the environment through the reduction of CO2 emissions; highlights the fact that completing the TEN-T will foster growth, jobs and cohesion throughout the Union and help it meet its socioeconomic and climate goals;












2.


Acknowledges that large projects play a key role in transport networks, delivering great socioeconomic benefits, creating and sustaining employment, improving productivity and competitiveness, enhancing infrastructure and affecting the everyday lives of citizens; observes that investments in infrastructure are more or less equivalent to investments in people, and that large transport projects are tangible examples of the EU budget’s impact and solidarity; notes, therefore, that effective monitoring and control and sound financial management of this type of project is one of the keys to their successful implementation; welcomes the revision of the TEN-T aiming to build an effective, sustainable and multimodal transport network across Europe;












3.


Understands that there is no generally agreed on definition, at either global or EU level, of what constitutes a large transport project; acknowledges that EU co-funded transport projects may have a regional, national or a cross-border dimension and that the total amounts invested in them vary greatly;












4.


Underlines that Member States’ transport networks cannot be looked at in isolation, since a Europe-wide transport network has been clearly acknowledged as a vision with benefits that go beyond isolated national action; stresses that proper connectivity within and between European regions is crucial, especially because of that the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, Russia’s illegal and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine and the critical need to establish alternative logistics routes using various transport modes; notes, further, the impact that the war has had on inflation rates in the Union, particularly as a result of rising fuel and energy prices; underlines, in this regard, that high inflation hampers the financial soundness of transport projects; is concerned that the current social and political post-pandemic outlook, combined with the consequences of the war, poses a further threat to the timely completion and development of large projects and especially the core TEN-T network; highlights, therefore, that extending the European transport network corridors to neighbouring non-EU partner countries (such as Ukraine, Moldova, North Macedonia, Albania, etc.) would significantly improve the seamless functioning of the TEN-T network; calls, for Bulgaria and Romania to be swiftly integrated into the Schengen Area, as this would significantly improve north-south connectivity in Eastern Europe; calls on the Commission to support Ukraine and its efforts to strengthen rail connections between Ukraine and the EU with a view to the future integration of Ukraine’s transport infrastructure into the TEN-T;












5.


Underlines that the success of large transport infrastructure projects in the EU will depend to a large extent on how well the EU succeeds in connecting the infrastructure of the eastern Member States to that of the western Member States; highlights the key role of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) funding in large infrastructure projects; stresses, in particular, the importance of expanding the TEN-T to encompass the EU’s partners in the Eastern Neighbourhood, notably Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova, and of increasing the budget allocation for military mobility;












6.


Remarks that, through its TEN-T policy, the EU is aiming to build an effective EU-wide transport infrastructure network using EU funding programmes and initiatives, including the CEF, the European Fund for Strategic Investment, Horizon 2020, the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund; draws attention to the different management methods across different EU instruments and to the different responsible Directorates-General (DGs) within the Commission, necessitating a significant degree of coordination and shared management between Member States and the Commission (the DGs for Regional and Urban Policy) on the cohesion policy funds and direct management by the Commission of the TEN-T and the CEF under the responsibility of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency (CINEA) on behalf of the DG for Mobility and Transport;






EU funding and implementation










7.


Highlights that, since large transport projects are not defined as a separate category in the EU legal framework, there is no comprehensive data available on the amount of EU co-funding provided for such projects; remarks that over the 2007-2020 period, the EU budget allocated over EUR 109 billion to transport infrastructure projects on the TEN-T network, regardless of their size; remarks, furthermore, that alongside these programmes funded by the EU budget, the European Investment Bank provided roughly EUR 151 billion in loans for transport projects in the EU for the 2007-2020 period;












8.


Highlights that the EU is currently experiencing an unprecedented situation whereby numerous sources of funding must be absorbed simultaneously and that Member States often do not have the administrative capacity to handle all the funding available from the Recovery and Resilience Facility through the national recovery and resilience plans, while trying to absorb EUR 392 billion of cohesion policy funding before the end of 2027; is concerned by the clear competition between the 2021-2027 cohesion funds and NextGenerationEU, as Member States have to prioritise funding instruments by their eligibility deadline; calls for synergies between cohesion funding and the Recovery and Resilience Facility (the largest instrument in the NextGenerationEU package), with coherence, convergence and coordination between the two, in order to increase the impact of investments on the ground and avoid double funding;












9.


Highlights, further, that FAST (Flexible Assistance for Territories) — CARE is providing the opportunity to phase in delayed projects from the 2014-2020 period to the 2021-2027 period; draws attention, nevertheless, to the fact that the possible net reduction of the respective allocations in the current period is putting at risk the EU budget and its implementation;












10.


Welcomes the number of high impact, successful projects co-financed by the EU budget; notes, in particular, the impact of projects such as: the construction of a high-speed railway platform (Spain, EUR 749 million); the doubling of the ‘Bari — S. Andrea-Bitetto’ railway section (Italy, EUR 421 million); the construction of a new Route du Littoral (France, EUR 304 million); the modernisation of the Elin Pelin — Kostenets railway section of the Sofia-Plovdiv railway line (Bulgaria, EUR 553 million); the construction of an express road between Craiova and Pitesti (Romania, EUR 832 million); the construction of the S7 expressway between Gdansk and Elbląg, and Thorns and Elbląg (Poland, EUR 504 million); the improvement of TEN-T road connectivity with South Dalmatia (Croatia, EUR 418 million); works on the MÚK Opatovice-Časy-Ostrov section of the D35 motorway (Czechia, EUR 384 million); the construction of the Patras Pyrgos motorway (Greece, EUR 355 million); the modernisation of the railway line between Púchov and Žilina (Slovakia, EUR 349 million); upgrades to the existing Maribor-Šentilj railway (Slovenia, EUR 195 million); the modernisation of the Ovar-Gaia railroad (Portugal, EUR 140 million); the construction of stage III of the western bypass of Vilnius (Lithuania, EUR 92 million); works on state road No 2, Tallinn-Tartu-Võru-Luhamaa Võõbu-Mäo (Estonia, EUR 59 million); the construction of the main state motorway, A2 (Riga-Sigulda-Estonian border) (Latvia, EUR 44 million); and the construction of a multi-level road junction at EA20A and EA21 along the TEN-T (Malta, EUR 41 million); points out, in addition, the role that the European Investment Bank plays in supporting innovative and sustainable infrastructure projects in the Member States, both at national and local level;






Identified policy shortcomings and challenges










11.


Recalls that, in the EU, the competence to implement projects lies with the Member States; highlights that the Commission has for this purpose appointed European coordinators to facilitate the implementation of all infrastructure projects along each of the nine core transport network corridors set out in the TEN-T Regulation; is concerned about the risk of misalignment between the EU’s and Member States’ strategic priorities and calls for the role of European coordinators to be strengthened in order to facilitate the deployment of infrastructure projects along the TEN-T corridors and to ensure cooperation and the smooth delivery of cross-border projects; underlines that any extension of the TEN-T network, whether maritime, river or road, should be done in coordination with the countries concerned; further recalls that Member States should ensure consistency between their national transport and investment plans and the EU’s transport objectives in order to accelerate the implementation of large infrastructure transport projects and the finalisation of the TEN-T; stresses that projects within the Member States’ national plans go hand in hand with projects that are aligned with the Union’s transport objectives; calls on the Member States to give priority to completing the core TEN-T network in its entirety by 2030, rather than to completing the extended and the comprehensive networks; recalls the importance of increasing the connectivity of the network and the necessity of incentivising good cooperation among authorities at all levels from different Member States in reducing delays and costs in cases of misalignment of schedules and priorities;












12.


Calls on the Commission to submit an annual implementation report to the European Parliament and national parliaments outlining progress on the completion of the TEN-T;












13.


Stresses that the Commission should have a more prominent role in the oversight of project planning and implementation along transport network corridors, as Member States’ priorities are often mainly determined by their national contexts and so may neglect cross-border sections where EU co-funded large infrastructure projects are located; highlights the risk of decreased utility derived from the use of EU funds if adequate performance is not achieved; believes that in order to address this issue, consistency between national transport plans and investments and EU priorities should be strengthened, as should the conditionality of EU funding on engagement with EU priorities in terms of transport infrastructure deployment;












14.


Recalls that under the CEF, the Commission selects the infrastructure projects that will benefit from EU co-funding and determines the EU financial contribution on the basis of competitive periodical calls for proposals; is concerned about the risk of insufficient scrutiny of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) during project selection; welcomes the fact that, since 2015, the Commission has had dedicated external experts carry out a specific assessment of each project’s CBA; regrets that this assessment is sometimes solely based on the information contained in the project proposal; calls for the Commission to require promoters of large transport projects to submit the raw data and analyses used in their CBAs as part of their application in order to ensure adequate decision-making and use of EU funds;












15.


Acknowledges that, according to the European Court of Auditors, large transport projects require significant implementation time and the average expected construction time for audited EU co-funded large transport projects up to 2020 was 15 years, with an average delay of 11 years; regrets that EU co-funded large infrastructure projects experience longer delays on average than comparable transport projects worldwide; highlights that this timeframe excludes the planning period, when projects can also receive EU co-funding for actions such as studies; notes that, as EU co-funding is organised around the seven-year multiannual financial framework (MFF) period, large transport projects are often co-funded via several subsequent grants, each requiring a new project proposal and selection process; is concerned that this leads to duplicated efforts by the project promoters and public authorities, increasing the administrative burden; notes with concern that such delays put the efficiency of EU co-funding at risk; urges the Member States to implement the Smart TEN-T Directive (10) in order to enable simplified and harmonised permitting procedures and prevent delays in projects;












16.


Urges the Member States to implement the Smart TEN-T Directive more effectively, particularly as regards cross-border sections in order to prevent them from becoming bottlenecks, as well as to prevent delays to the completion of the European transport corridors and the TEN-T; stresses that the Member States and project promoters should comply with the Smart TEN-T Directive in order to avoid delays and cost overruns and to ensure the timely completion of the TEN-T; calls, in this regard, for the permit-granting procedures, including environmental assessments, to be carried out according to the measures and shortened time frames of the directive;












17.


Stresses, moreover, that many EU co-funded projects are subject to cost overruns compared to initial estimates at the project planning stage; highlights that this will become even more problematic in the post-COVID-19 environment and in the context of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; points especially to the rising inflation rates and the increasing costs of construction and raw materials, and their impact on project budgets; draws attention to the fact that inflation represents an enormous risk to current and future infrastructure projects, which may be stalled due to the highly inflated prices of building and raw materials; calls for the CEF budget to be increased to meet the additional costs stemming from inflation, as well as to account for other geopolitical and transition needs and challenges affecting the implementation of the TEN-T, including cross-border sections;












18.


Notes the significant delays in the adoption of partnership agreements (PAs) and programmes in the context of cohesion policy implementation in the current 2021-2027 programming period; remarks that the programmes should have been operational since January 2021; is concerned about the slow pace of implementation; acknowledges, however, that we have entered a new phase of implementation and that the Commission has so far approved 25 PAs; welcomes the fact that at least 142 programmes have been submitted in the context of cohesion policy as of 25 October 2022, and that this also constitutes a considerable step forward (11);












19.


Highlights the risk that outstanding commitments bear on the Union budget and may also generate significant decommitments, which in turn decrease the impact of the EU budget and hinder the planned transport infrastructure objectives of the Union; points to the specific negative impacts of under-execution of payments and implementation delays on large transport infrastructure projects; calls for the Commission to inform the budgetary authority about the factors contributing to this issue and the measures it has taken to address it;












20.


Considers it very important that the MFF, as well as the national recovery plans, give stronger priority to infrastructure investments and the completion of the core TEN-T; regrets the strong disparities between Member States in terms of planned investments for transport infrastructure; recalls that f the military mobility budget was reduced from EUR 5,9 billion to EUR 1,69 billion; believes that, given the limited administrative capacity of the Member States, additional financing should be allocated for technical assistance at national and regional level to develop large-scale transport infrastructure projects; considers that the CEF should act as an effective financial incentive to bridge the gap between national interests and European transport priorities;












21.


Calls for the Commission and the Member States to rapidly establish a financial framework to better foster and attract private investments for infrastructure projects, and to develop innovative financial arrangements, notably through blending mechanisms; calls for the next MFF for 2028-2035 to include a budget envelope dedicated to ‘external transport’ under the CEF III in order to increase cooperation with non-EU partners on cross-border projects and infrastructure deployment; believes that, given the current geopolitical reality, the EU’s new priorities should be matched with additional money and should not come at the expense of other transport programmes and priorities;






Performance, accountability and monitoring










22.


Highlights that the project monitoring performed by CINEA is mainly oriented towards financial aspects and outputs and does not focus on projects’ broader results and impacts, including, but not limited to, those on the local population or the environment; calls on the Commission and CINEA to consider making use of more results-oriented goals and indicators to improve the potential for synergies between different funding programmes, as well as to better monitor project results;












23.


Welcomes the fact that transparent, accountable and adequate monitoring and reporting measures, including measurable indicators, have been introduced in the new CEF; highlights that performance reporting systems must ensure that the data collected through monitoring of the implementation and results of the CEF can be used for in-depth analysis of the progress achieved, including for climate tracking, and that it is collected efficiently, effectively and in a timely manner;












24.


Notes with concern that, while the Union produces systematic ex post evaluations of programmes, the Commission has not performed, nor has it required project promoters to perform, systematic ex post assessments of individual EU co-funded large transport projects; notes that there is currently no legal obligation for them to do so; highlights that these ex post assessments could increase transparency on the effectiveness of the projects and generate lessons learnt for future large infrastructure projects; recommends that the Commission propose indicative definitions for large regional, national and cross-border infrastructure projects eligible for EU-funding, as there is no generally agreed on definition at either global or EU level of what constitutes a large transport project, to provide better focus for the competing project proposals, to add clarity to the data collection for approved projects and to further facilitate monitoring, control and evaluation activities;






Main priorities and recommendations










25.


Believes that international experience as regards the financing and implementation of large infrastructure projects is worth analysing, and calls for the lessons from this analysis to be considered in the architecture of future policies (post-2027); points, in this regard, to examples of long-term financial support for large transport projects (Australia and Switzerland), risk-based monitoring systems for large transport projects (United States and Switzerland), and ex post evaluations of projects based on standardised indicators at the level of promoters (United States and Norway);












26.


Believes especially that a systematic risk-based monitoring system for large transport projects would help to better address the significant delays of large transport infrastructure projects in the EU and would contribute to further improvements in managing cost overruns;












27.


Is concerned by the administrative burden that requesting additional information and analysis for the selection process may put upon the project promoters; believes that a two-step approach whereby project promoters are invited to submit a comprehensive project proposal only once their expression of interest has been approved could be considered for the future programming period;












28.


Encourages the Commission to consider a way in which it could be more visible in the stakeholder involvement process, which could be extremely beneficial in promoting the EU added value of large transport projects;












29.


Is convinced that adequate control over fund implementation is a necessity as infrastructure projects are prone to irregularities including corruption; calls on the Commission and the Member States to put into mandatory use a single integrated, interoperable information and monitoring system, including a single data-mining and risk-scoring tool to access and analyse the relevant data, including information on beneficial ownership, and increase control reliability, with a view to a generalised application, including with the help of the Technical Support Instrument; emphasises that such data should allow for the strengthening of the control and audit processes, notably as regards fraud and conflicts of interest;












30.


Notes that effective control depends on close cooperation between the EU anti-fraud stakeholders; calls for further collaboration between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the European Anti-Fraud Office, with a view to improving monitoring and control systems in shared management and preventing possibilities for mismanagement of funds;












31.


Expresses its concern that there is a lack of systematic evaluation of large transport projects in the EU and that existing monitoring is focused mainly on financial inputs and outputs rather than outcomes; calls for the outcomes of such projects to be given greater visibility, as they play a significant role in building long-term socioeconomic and environmental benefits; calls, additionally, for a review of the long-term benefits of large transport projects and for the evaluation of any benefits that are additional to the direct benefits produced by such projects (12);












32.


Calls on the Commission to further strengthen ex post evaluation indicators where possible by introducing criteria such as road safety; reduction of deaths and serious injuries; reduction of emissions, which would improve air quality; reduction of noise pollution; alleviation of other environmental disturbances; increase in economic activity in terms of income and employment benefits for the local population and businesses; time- and transport-cost benefits for people and freight; and other social benefits; notes, in this regard, that the lack of effective enforcement related to the quality of infrastructure is a significant additional contributor to poor road safety resulting in deaths and injuries; believes that measuring economic impacts through regional or national macroeconomic models could assist in alleviating any potential risks arising from the lack of scrutiny (13); recognises the need for streamlined regulatory processes to ensure appropriate public consultation and environmental impact assessments, while ensuring that critical infrastructure projects are not unduly blocked; stresses the importance of performing a thorough socioeconomic cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact assessment using standardised methodology and the whole life-cycle approach for every large transport infrastructure project;












33.


Calls for close alignment between the EU’s and the Member States’ strategic priorities; calls for the Commission to be given greater oversight over the planning and implementation of projects along transport network corridors; notes that, in many Member States, priority treatment is given to certain project categories based on their strategic importance, characterised by shorter timelines and simultaneous and/or simplified procedures; considers that, when such a framework exists within a national legal framework, it should automatically apply to projects on the TEN-T; calls for the Member States whose national legal frameworks lack such priority treatment to establish it for transport projects, with a view to limiting the administrative burden for project promoters and to ensuring a more seamless and efficient procedure; concludes that this could have a positive impact on accelerating large transport infrastructure projects; stresses that multiple, different and complex permit-granting procedures, cross-border procurement procedures and other procedures greatly hinder the timely implementation of projects and often result in significant delays and increased costs; highlights, in this regard, the benefits of having one designated authority for streamlining administrative procedures at national level;












34.


Calls on the Commission to focus on the development of cross-border transport infrastructure to ensure better and greener connectivity in Europe; recommends increasing the availability of international night trains to provide sustainable transport alternatives;












35.


Is concerned that long waiting times at internal EU borders negatively affect EU-funded infrastructure and decrease its overall usability, with impacts on cities and citizens, air quality and noise pollution, as well as an increased risk of road accidents, while compromising working conditions for drivers; calls, therefore, for the establishment of an EU-wide standard of one minute on average for the processing and control of EU registered heavy-duty vehicles at EU borders in order to help facilitate optimal usage of transport infrastructure and networks; calls further for the prioritisation of cross-border interconnectivity projects aimed at removing bottlenecks, addressing missing links, identifying strategic segments and enhancing cross-border connectivity and projects for interconnectivity, as well as of different transport modes to promote multimodality and sustainability; considers that cross-border and missing-link projects provide the highest European added value and stresses that their urgent realisation is of the highest priority; calls additionally on the Member States to use lessons learnt from ongoing TEN-T projects when considering new infrastructure projects funded by the EU and to share best practices and relevant information in a timely and effective manner, with the ultimate aim of improving the implementation of transport infrastructure projects;












36.


Calls for the European Cross-Border Mechanism to be swiftly adopted, as it would improve the efficiency of EU investments in cross-border transport infrastructure;












37.


Calls on the Commission to establish a European fast track for the infrastructure projects along the core and comprehensive TEN-T network; considers that the fast track should comprise three pillars:






—


Binding ex ante consultations between the Member States and the Commission, prior to the submission of the projects application forms, which should shorten the procedure time by allowing the Member States to address potential negative observations by the Commission as early as possible;










—


An accelerated environmental impact assessment and approval procedure by the Commission to further reduce application-to-implementation times;










—


Common EU-wide minimum standards for financial and economic assessment of the projects (i.e. economic viability, maturity, return on investment), which should ensure clarity and uniformity and work to minimise any potential issues arising from the carrying out of audits;
















38.


Calls for the recognition of specific added value in projects contributing to the much-needed harmonisation of alternative fuels infrastructure deployment across the Union; calls for a swift agreement on and the implementation of the proposed regulation on alternative fuels infrastructure (14);












39.


Proposes that contingency measures and funding flexibility be considered in order to allow for the continued implementation and completion of key projects in the event of force majeure or crisis situations, taking into account general project duration; proposes introducing appropriate indexing or other models to adjust the costs of construction and raw materials in line with the rate of inflation;




o
o o








40.


Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.






(1)  
            OJ L 433 I, 22.12.2020, p. 11.

(2)  
            OJ L 57, 18.2.2021, p. 17.

(3)  
            OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1.

(4)  
            OJ L 249, 14.7.2021, p. 38.

(5)  
            OJ L 348, 20.12.2013, p. 1.

(6)  
            OJ L 249, 27.9.2019, p. 97.

(7)  
            OJ L 417, 11.12.2020, p. 365.

(8)  
            OJ L 340, 24.9.2021, p. 1.

(9)  
            OJ L 258, 5.10.2022, p. 38.

(10)  Directive (EU) 2021/1187 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 on streamlining measures for advancing the realisation of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) (OJ L 258, 20.7.2021, p. 1).

(11)  European Commission, ‘New Cohesion Policy’, accessed 3 May 2023.

(12)  International Transport Forum, Major Transport Infrastructure Projects and Economic Development, ITF Round Tables, No 154, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2014.

(13)  Ibid.

(14)  Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure, and repealing Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (COM(2021)0559).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/481/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)