Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 102kWORD 24k
24 February 2014
E-002116-14
Question for written answer E-002116-14
to the Commission
Rule 117
Adam Bielan (ECR)

 Subject:  Modernisation of the Katowice-Kraków rail line
 Answer in writing 

Kraków and Katowice — two of Poland's largest and most important cities — lie only 80 km apart, yet travelling between them by train takes two hours owing to the poor state of rail infrastructure.

Modernisation of the aforementioned route was originally scheduled to begin in 2010 and to end in 2015. More than half of the money needed to carry out this investment project was to come from EU funds.

However, work has been delayed and even halted on some stretches of the track after the company responsible for carrying out the modernisation went bankrupt. At present, progress on modernising the route remains insignificant. For some stretches of the route, design documentation has not even been produced. Information provided by the Polish Ministry of Infrastructure and Development reveals that the refurbishment of the line is not expected to be completed until 2017.

Rail infrastructure throughout Poland is in need of major investment; however, as the example of the Katowice-Kraków line proves, EU funds are not being used appropriately. Could the Commission provide information on whether and to what extent the Polish authorities engaged in consultations on the substitution of rail line modernisation projects co‐financed by the EU? Could it say whether it believes the investment project in question will be completed by 2017? Could it also say whether the redirection of earmarked funds to other objectives could result in those funds being lost?

Original language of question: PLOJ C 317, 16/09/2014
Legal notice - Privacy policy