# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0408 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0408

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Accelerating the implementation of the Single European Sky /* COM/2013/0408 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Accelerating the implementation of the
Single European Sky

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.           INTRODUCTION

1.1.        Reaffirming the objectives
of the Single European Sky

The European aviation industry plays a
vital role in the European economy, by promoting trade and tourism and acting
as a vehicle for employment growth. Air traffic control is a key factor in the
value chain of the aviation industry. It should ensure the safe, expeditious
and cost-efficient flow of air traffic thereby minimising fuel usage, carbon
emissions and flying times.

However, European air navigation services have
historically evolved primarily within national borders, with each Member State
establishing its own Air Traffic Management (ATM) system leading to costly and
inefficient structural fragmentation of the Europe's airspace and a persistent
lack of responsiveness to the requirements of its customers – the airlines, and
ultimately, the paying customers.

In 2004[1],
the EU launched the Single European Sky (SES) initiative with a threefold
objective: "to enhance current air traffic safety standards, to
contribute to the sustainable development of the air transport system and to
improve the overall performance of the European ATM system and air navigation
services "[2].
The commitment to these objectives was further enforced by formulating high
level goals to be achieved by 2020[3].
A major project to modernise the technology behind the European ATM system was
launched in 2007 (the SESAR[4]
project). 2009 saw the addition of additional concrete tools to drive
performance and steer the reform of the European ATM system[5]: a revised approach to
stimulate integrated service provision, a process of target-setting for
performance objectives and the establishment of the Network Manager to coordinate
action at the European network level. A five-tier approach was finally devised
to cover the various aspects of SES: safety, performance, technology, airports
and human factor

The achievement of the SES is one of the key priorities of the
European Commission's overall transport policy[6].
But although all Member States remain committed to the SES, implementation still
falls well below the original expectations, and accelerating the process of
reform of the European ATM system through a new package of measures was
identified in 2012 as a key action for the development of the Single Market[7]. Air traffic delays have been reduced
(partly as a consequence of the financial crisis which has reduced air traffic
in Europe).But while safety levels have been constantly maintained, cost-efficiency
has not improved quickly enough, and the environmental impact of sub-optimal
flight profiles remains significant. At a time when European airlines are
facing tough competition globally and aviation growth is shifting towards the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions, it is hard to ignore the untapped potential gains of
the SES, amounting to €5 billion per year[8].
The faster the Single European Sky is implemented, the quicker the expected
returns will materialise.

The latest forecast indicates there will be 14.4 million flights by
2035 in Europe, 50% more than in 2012. Air traffic growth will put a strain on
ATM capacity and exacerbate the misalignment between ATM capacity and airport
throughput[9]
where nearly two million flights would not be accommodated because of airport
capacity shortfalls[10].

The implementation of the SES and associated
reform of the European ATM system must be accelerated, helping our airspace
users in a tough global competitive environment, and facilitating future
economic growth. So the Commission, building on the experience of the SES so
far, is proposing a carefully targeted further legislative proposal to
facilitate early implementation of the SES, a legislative package consisting of
the recast of the four regulations creating the Single European Sky and the
amendment of the regulation establishing the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA[11]).

1.2.        Evolution of the
performance of air navigation services

At the end of the 1990s, Europe faced major
delay and inefficiency in the provision of air traffic control services. More
than a decade later, fragmentation of the European airspace remains high, with 50
air traffic control centres in the 29 different Air Navigation Service
Providers (ANSPs)[12].

In 2011, the total direct and indirect
costs for air traffic control in Europe amounted to some €14 billion . The
direct costs alone (levied in the form of user charges) account for more than
20% of the total operating costs, excluding fuel, of the most efficient
airlines. Generally speaking, direct air traffic control costs are the third largest
item (after fuel and airport charges) for airlines.

Productivity (measured in air traffic
controller-hours) has increased by some 18% in the last decade, but the overall
employment costs for air traffic controllers have risen faster (by almost 40%).
Total air traffic control costs rose by 10%, and the number of European air
traffic controllers has risen to around 14500. These however remain only a
third of total staff employed by ANSPs, indicating a very high number of
support staff (around 30000 in 2011).

Even with the observed decrease in air traffic,
which has eased the pressure on the system, capacity has been stagnant: the
average total air traffic control delay per flight was roughly the same in 2011
as 2003. Environmental performance depends on flight efficiency, i.e. the
opportunity given to airspace users to fly along the more direct routings. Full
success in this field is still to come and costs of gate-to gate
insufficiencies due to additional fuel and flying times are estimated at €3.8
billion in 2011. ATC shows a good safety record and work is in progress to strengthen
the implementation of safety programmes, management systems and analysis
methods.

2.           ENFORCING AND IMPROVING
EXISTING RULES

In the last revision of the SES legal
framework in 2009, the Commission focused on the need for a radical improvement
of the performance of the air traffic control system. The delivery of the
performance objectives should indeed be seen as a primary ambition in setting
up the Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), the management of network functions
(Network Manager), and the SESAR project.

All have advanced over the last two years. Targets
for the first reference period (2012-14) of the performance scheme were decided
upon in 2011 and the scheme itself entered into force in 2012; the Network
Manager[13]
became operational in 2011; and the deadline for shifting to a more integrated
operating airspace, based on FABs, arrived in December 2012. The SESAR Joint
Undertaking, whose task is to oversee the development of SESAR, has started to
deliver the elements of the new ATM system. Finally, the deadlines for some other
key measures (such as datalink and aeronautical data quality) have also been
reached but in a number of cases, implementation lags behind schedule.

The activity level coupled with the
implementation of SES has been high in the last two years, but the delivery of the
expected benefits can be generally considered insufficient. The performance
plans agreed at the EU level for 2012-14 would generate savings of €2.4 billion
over the three years. Planned contributions from Member States have however not
matched this overall target, leaving a shortfall of €189 million. Furthermore
airspace users dispute the validity of these figures, arguing that inflation,
carry-overs and risk-sharing resulting from previous years will in fact lead to
a substantial increase of their costs in 2014. The Network Manager has performed
well, but its functions remain limited, in particular with regard to the
adoption of concrete remedial actions. Finally, while the Member States have agreed
to set up nine FABs, they remain essentially institutional and administrative
endeavours and do not yet provide concrete operational gains.

Existing legislation already goes some way
in addressing these issues with powers given to the Commission to define and
enforce implementing measures. The performance and charging schemes have
recently been revised to modernise them in the light of the experience of their
first application. The Commission must set performance targets based on
existing legislation for the next reference period (2015-2019) by the end of
2013. Governance mechanisms for SESAR deployment have been introduced paving
the way for the selection of a deployment manager and the launch of the
deployment process in 2014.

The Commission is determined to ensure implementation
of the SES in all aspects, and has therefore taken preparatory steps to launch
infringement procedures against Member States who have thus far failed to
comply with the requirements for the establishment of FABs. Similarly it will
not hesitate to take further actions if the lack of implementation of some
interoperability measures is confirmed, e.g., datalink services.

But most essential of all, accelerating the
implementation of SES requires that ambitious performance targets, in
particular in the capacity and cost-efficiency areas, are set in the second and
third reference periods of the performance scheme. In this context, more
attention will be paid to performance from a gate-to-gate perspective. It will
be increasingly difficult to deliver the required level of performance in a
network characterized by a higher number of air traffic control centres and
airports facing serious congestion issues.

The
Commission will therefore continue to closely monitor the evolution of air
traffic and its impact on ATM and airport capacity in Europe to ensure that the
required capacity gains are timely delivered.

3.           ENHANCING THE EFFICIENCY
OF SES

3.1.        Focussing ANSPs on
customer needs: delivering on performance

The performance scheme is the key enabler
for measuring the achievements of the Single European Sky. Based on a system of
target setting, planning, monitoring and reporting in the four key performance
areas of safety, environment, capacity and cost-efficiency, the performance
scheme establishes the framework under which service providers are compelled to
change in order to provide better services at lower costs. For example the cost
targets effectively set a price cap on the services, above which the service
providers may not charge users, thus forcing them to be more cost-effective.

The implementation of the scheme in the
first reference period from 2012-2014 will lead to some tangible results in
form of efficiency gains. Together with environment and capacity targets,
flights will be more direct and delays reduced. At the same time it is also
clear that more could have been achieved: the initial targets proposed by the
Commission and the Performance Review Body for the first reference period were
reduced in the approval process in the Single Sky Committee where Member States
vetoed more ambitious targets; and,- see above- the final performance plans fall
short by a small but significant amount, further, reducing, the overall level
of ambition.

Experience also shows that Member States,
which are either sole or majority owners of service providers, have a strong
tendency to focus on healthy revenue streams of the user-financed system of air
traffic control services, and can be therefore reluctant to endorse fundamental
change towards a more integrated operating airspace which brings risks of strikes
or possible repercussions for cash-strapped national budgets.

Against this background, the performance
scheme needs to be strengthened to increase transparency and become more
enforceable; to make target setting more technical and evidence based; to
increase the independence of the Performance Review Body as the key technical
adviser, and finally to reinforce control by the Commission and enable sanctions
when targets are not met. In parallel airspace users should be given a stronger
role in the process.

Under
the current system, Member States in the Single Sky Committee have the ultimate
say on targets, the adoption of performance plans and the acceptance of
corrective measure in case targets are not reached. In its legislative package,
the Commission is proposing to strengthen control and sanction mechanisms.
Furthermore, members of the Performance Review Body should henceforth be
directly nominated by the Commission, to ensure impartiality.

3.2.        Increasing the efficiency
of support services

The first SES package of 2004 aimed to
introduce market mechanisms for the provision of support services, in order to
improve their efficiency[14].
Little in practice has been achieved although in the two cases[15] where such measures have been taken-
in Sweden and the UK - the results have been positive (one of the ANSPs
estimated the saving to be around 50% compared to internalised provision of
support services). So more could and should be done to delegate the provision
of support services to specialised providers.

Introducing market mechanisms, where
possible, is fully in line with what is being done elsewhere in European infrastructure
industries, either by competition within the market or competition for the
market under tender procedures providing time limited concessions. A
progressive opening of support services to competition will not only provide
new business opportunities to the ATM industry and beyond but also allow a
quicker and less expensive implementation of new technologies. On the most
conservative estimate based on recent experience , roughly 20% savings can be
expected in respect of support services.

Clearly introducing competition in, all ATM
services would not be appropriate. The Commission's analysis indicates that the
core air traffic control services are natural monopolies at least under current
technology: it is not feasible e.g. to have two control towers at a single
airport or two controllers in the same sector competing for business. In
theory, tender procedures offering concessions for limited periods of time
could be considered for these core services, but these would require strong
economic regulation and oversight.

However, support services, such as
meteorology, aeronautical information, communication, navigation or
surveillance services are more practical propositions. There are many companies
inside and outside the ATM world who could offer such services, which could be divided
between several providers to maximise competition, or – as recently suggested
by Eurocontrol in its analysis of the concept of "centralised
services", attributed to a single provider or a grouping of service
providers that could support several core providers.

The
Commission is of the opinion that market mechanisms should be introduced to
increase efficiency in the provision of support services. In this legislative
package the Commission proposes to pursue the separation and market opening of
certain of these support services mentioned above.

3.3.        Strengthening the
independence of National Supervisory Authorities' (NSA) independence

NSAs have a major role to play in the
implementation of SES. Their tasks have gradually increased since their
establishment in 2004 and most are still developing their organisation and
capabilities to match. Their primary responsibilities cover verifications of
compliance of the ANSPs, which involves the supervision of safe and efficient service
provision, organisation of proper inspections and the conclusion and
implementation of agreements on the supervision of ANSPs within FABs. NSAs also
cooperate to ensure supervision of ANSPs providing services in another State.
Finally, they prepare, oversee and monitor the ANSP performance plans, this new
task becoming more and more important.

A number of difficulties in the
implementation of SES can be attributed to NSA difficulties – to inadequate
resources, to a lack of expertise and a lack of independence from both
governments and ANSPs. This has affected both the processes of certification
and oversight of ANSPs, as well as in the preparation and implementation of the
performance scheme. Failing to address these shortcomings will significantly
risk the implementation of the SES.

The problem of inadequate resources has a
direct impact on technical skills and weakens the independence of the
regulatory body vis-à-vis the ANSP, and should be resolved by strengthening
mutual co-operation between NSAs (for example at FAB level), by more intensive coordination
between NSAs at EU level allowing them to exchange best practices and participate
in training programmes and by the pooling of experts for example under EASA
auspices. Greater financial autonomy will make it possible to tackle the existing
staff shortages.

NSAs have to perform their duties with
impartiality and independence. While existing legislation requires that "this
independence shall be achieved through adequate separation at the functional
level at least"[16]
between NSAs and ANSPs, most of the States have opted for a structural
separation. Nevertheless, even this has not always delivered, especially when the
resources and expertise remain inadequate, resulting in a stronger influence by
the ANSPs. The Commission therefore proposes a set of binding criteria in order
to ensure the autonomous and effective operation of NSAs.

In this
context, the Commission believes that the regulatory framework dealing with the
efficiency and independence of NSAs should be reinforced as a matter of priority
and will propose specifically binding criteria relating to the independence and
capacity of NSAs.

4.           REMOVING THE
FRAGMENTATION OF THE EUROPEAN ATM SYSTEM

4.1.        Enabling industrial
partnerships

Functional Airspace Blocks (FABs), are
intended to combat fragmentation of the airspace by establishing co-operation
between ANSPs, optimising the organisation and use of airspace through design
of optimal control sectors and routes over larger areas and hence achieving
overall synergies through economies of scale. In 2009, a binding deadline of
December 2012 was set for Member States to establish FABs including
a series of detailed and binding criteria related to improved performance in service
provision.

Whilst a lot of work by the Member States and their ANSPs has been done to create FABs, progress has been
disappointing. Nine FABs have been announced, but in fact none of them are
fully operational, and most seem intended to fulfil formal requirements, rather
than developing synergies or economies of scale.

Real - as opposed to merely institutional -
FAB developments have often been blocked, because of fears that the revenue
stream from air navigation charges would fall, in some cases by over 30 %, if
these FAB developments were to be implemented and services would be
rationalised by e.g. shortening routes. Strong opposition from staff, defending
their current staffing levels has been an additional issue for States to
confront in that respect.

Furthermore, claims of national sovereignty
problems have been made to protect existing monopolies, in the name of
protection of military infrastructure, objectives, and operations in European
airspace. While genuine military needs are justifiably protected under the
Single European Sky, the precise line between those valid needs and undue
protection of national interests has often become blurred. Finally, the treatment
of existing long-term amortisation and investment plans on technical
infrastructure has also proved too sensitive for States to handle, despite the
existing regulatory requirement to achieve optimum use of resources in FABs.

The Commission will continue to pursue
infringement cases against Member States in relation to the FABs, particularly
those where progress towards reform is not demonstrated clearly in the coming
months, and remains committed to the adoption by FABs of organisational models
suitable for a more integrated operating airspace. FABs may now actually need
more flexibility by making it legally clearer that they can pursue more
variable co-operation arrangements between ANSPs to exploit synergies and team
up with different partners for different projects to improve performance. These
arrangements could cover common procurement, training, support services or
delegation of services. The Commission proposes to modify the rules to enable
FABs to pursue such projects. The precise manner of improving performance
should be left to the choice of the industry participants, as long as
performance improvements are realised.

The
Commission is proposing in this legislative package to further develop the FAB
concept so that it becomes a more performance driven and flexible tool for
ANSPs, based on industrial partnerships, to achieve the targets set by the SES
performance scheme.

More
emphasis will also be put on the central Network Manager as regards overall
airspace management (see section 4.2)

4.2.        Reinforcing the role of
the Network Manager

The Network Manager for the EU ATM network,
which has been operational since 2011, is a major player in the implementation
of SES. A growing number of functions and services in the European ATM system
could in fact be performed in a more centralised manner. Eurocontrol has been
designated by the Commission as Network Manager, and has performed well[17]; in its capacity as Network
Manager, it has as a key remit the prevention of bottlenecks in the airspace
and system overloads on a day-to-day basis, as well as the facilitation of
direct routings of aircraft. These functions thereby directly support ANSPs in
meeting performance targets related to capacity and flight efficiency. The Network
Manager's role is recognised by all stakeholders as essential.

Promoting the network dimension in
strategic and operational terms requires very close cooperation across all
operational stakeholders. However, whilst the original intention was to create
strong industry-led governance with clear executive powers, in practice the Network
Manager tends to decide by consensus, which often results in weak compromises.
The concept of an industrial partnership for improved service provision should
be taken as an objective which would also fit with the further reform of
Eurocontrol (see section 5.2). Thereby the air navigation service providers and
airspace users would participate in the Network Manager as a kind of joint
venture. This model ensures the separation from regulatory bodies as it turns
the Network Manager away from the role of an intergovernmental organisation and
towards a normal air navigation service provider. Furthermore it favours
investments in the Network Manager consistent with the business plans of
operational stakeholders, as the industry partners will see the organisation as
part of their own business and will hence be more prepared to invest in its
operation.

Furthermore, the current Network Manager
operations cover only a subset of functions and services needed for the
optimisation of the performance of the network. A gradual extension of the NM
initial operating scope of action is therefore needed.

The
Commission therefore proposes in this legislative package to reinforce the role
of the Network Manager based on streamlined
governance that gives a more prominent role to the industry (ANSPs, airspace
users and airports). This will allow the enlarging of its scope to include new
functions (including aspects of airspace design) and services related to
network operations to be performed at the central level by the Network
Manager.

5.           BUILDING A MORE CONSISTENT
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

5.1.        Role of the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in ATM

EASA has been pivotal in EU aviation policy
since 2002, with its objective both to achieve a high and uniform level of
safety and to further the traditional EU goals of a level playing field, free
movement, environmental protection, avoidance of regulatory duplication,
promotion of ICAO rules etc. In 2009[18],
EASA's responsibilities expanded to cover in addition safety aspects relating
to ATM and aerodromes. The 2009 extension to ATM created duplication in that as
a result some tasks are covered by both SES legislation and the EASA basic
regulation. This was deliberate to avoid a possible gap in the regulatory
framework during the transition phase. But the legislation invites the Commission
to propose changes to remove the overlap once the corresponding EASA
implementing rules have been established[19].

In areas such as air crew licensing or
airworthiness, EASA ensures the drafting of all technical rules, but ATM was
different in that a distinction was made between "safety" and
"non-safety" rules, given the strong residual role played by
Eurocontrol in non-safety issues. The problem is that all technical ATM rules
contain both safety elements and elements related to capacity, cost and
efficiency, so implementation is difficult, particularly as an increasing
number of ATM rules have impacts also on the airborne side and hence
airworthiness, air operations, training etc. With the SESAR project now getting
close to deployment, the problem of aligning different technical rules risks
getting worse as all related technologies and concepts must be facilitated or
mandated by the regulatory system. We need to move to a single regulatory
strategy, rule structure and consultation process under the EASA umbrella, also
with a view to ensuring the proper involvement of all affected parties, such as
the airspace users, airports, service providers and the military community.

The
Commission proposes in this legislative package to eradicate the overlap
between SES and EASA regulations and share work between the different institutions
accordingly. The Commission should therefore focus on the key questions of
economic regulation, whilst EASA ensures co-ordinated drafting and oversight of
all technical rules, drawing on expertise from Eurocontrol, Member States, and industry stakeholders. The proposal also takes the opportunity to update the
EASA regulation both to include up to date references to comitology in line
with the Lisbon treaty, and to the governance of EASA in line with the Common
Approach of the EP, Council and Commission on EU decentralised agencies in July
2012. The latter agreement includes also
standardisation of the names of EU Agencies, so that the name of EASA shall be
modified to "European Union Agency for Aviation (EAA).

5.2.        Focussing Eurocontrol on
the management and operation of the European ATM network

Eurocontrol is a major player in the
implementation of the SES. Originally established to provide a collective air
traffic control system in six European states[20],
it took on a broad set of ATM related tasks over the years and has become a major
centre of ATM expertise. Following the extension of EU competence to ATM
matters, Eurocontrol started a process of reorganisation to align itself with
SES policy: firstly to respect the principle of separation of regulatory
activities from service provision; and secondly to avoid duplication with the
increasing roles of the Commission and EASA in policy-making, regulatory,
certification and oversight activities. The EU became a provisional member of
this organisation in 2003. The on-going process of reform of Eurocontrol
facilitated its appointment as Performance Review Body (PRB) in 2010 and NM in
2011 and, starting from 2007, its participation in the SESAR Joint Undertaking as
a founding member.

Furthermore, in an effort to better
coordinate their activities, the EU and Eurocontrol signed an High level Agreement
in 2012 which recognises the contribution that Eurocontrol can make to the
establishment of an efficient European ATM system by assisting the EU in
playing its role as single European regulator. In this respect Eurocontrol will
continue to support the Commission and EASA in drafting of rules and
regulations.

Significant steps have already been taken, and
the final part of the process of the reform of Eurocontrol has begun in 2013.
It remains an intergovernmental organisation and its Constitution and its
decision-making bodies (such as the Provisional Council) do not yet reflect the
outcome of recent reform changes. The Commission supports the on-going reform
of Eurocontrol that will focus on the management and operation of the European
ATM network. The particular importance of this role has already been recognised
by the EU through a mandate to Eurocontrol to deliver the Network Management
functions set up under SES legislation. These functions could be further
enhanced – and the efficiency of the network further improved – if the NM were
to be charged with additional network functions or centralised services to be
contracted out to industry that ANSPs could make use of. This development
should be promoted in full consistency with the SES legal framework and SESAR
deployment. Moreover it cannot materialise without a shift in the governance of
this organisation towards a more industry-led environment (see section 4.2).

The provisional
governing bodies of Eurocontrol have started the discussion on the reform of
the organisation in May 2013. The Commission intends to contribute to this
discussion by co-ordinating the position of Member States to ensure a swift
revision of the Eurocontrol Convention starting from 2014 and focusing Eurocontrol
on operational tasks in which it has greatest expertise.

6.           CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the Single European Sky remains a
key priority in European aviation policy with the as yet unrealised potential
to deliver major savings for the aviation sector and indeed the European
Economy as a whole. Based on analysis contained in the present Communication
and the associated impact assessment, the Commission proposes a legislative
package (SES2+) to consolidate and where possible accelerate the process of
reform of ATM in Europe, by further addressing the inefficiencies in the
provision of air navigation services and by continuing to drive towards the defragmentation
of the European ATM system. The legislative proposals represent evolution, not
revolution, and build on, and do not supplant, previous reforms. But they
should significantly contribute to turn the European ATM system into a more efficient
integrated operating airspace in the coming years, building upon the results already
achieved since 2004.

[1]               Regulations (EC) Nos 549, 550, 551, 552/2004 of 10
March 2004 (OJ L 96, 31.3.2004, p. 1) as amended by Regulation No 1070/2009 of
21 October 2009 (OJ L 300, 14.11.2009)

[2]               Regulation (EC) No 549, Article 1(1)

[3]               A three-fold increase of capacity, an improvement in
safety by a factor of 10, a 10% reduction in the effects flights have on the
environment and a reduction of the cost of ATM services to airspace users by at
least 50%

[4]               Single European Sky ATM Research

[5]               Regulation (EC) No 1070/2009 of 21 October 2009 (OJ L
300, 14.11.2009, p. 34)

[6]               Refer to Annex I of COM(2011) 144 final

[7]               COM(2012) 573 final

[8]               Based on estimates documented
in reports by the Performance Review Body of the Single European Sky and the
Performance Review Commission.

[9]               Refer to paragraph 11 of COM(2011)823 final. "Increasing
capacity in the air will be pointless if airport capacity does not remain
aligned with ATM capacity".

[10]             Challenges of Growth 2013, EUROCONTROL – June
2013.

[11]             Whereas the Commission Roadmap on implementation of the
Joint Statement of the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the
European Commission on decentralised agencies, of July 2012, requires the
standardisation of the names of all EU Agencies to conform to the same format,
for reasons of clarity, this Communication uses the currently existing name of
the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) throughout the text. The texts of
the legislative proposals themselves have been adapted in accordance with the
new Joint Statement and Roadmap to use the standardised name "European
Union Agency for Aviation (EAA)".

[12]             The geographical scope of the SES extends over non-EU
Member States, like Switzerland and Norway, that have committed to implement it
through bilateral and multilateral agreements

[13]             Eurocontrol was nominated Network Manager through COMMISSION
DECISION of 7.7.2011 on the nomination of the Network Manager for the air
traffic management (ATM) network functions of the single European sky (C(2011) 4130 final)

[14]             Regulation (EC) 550/2004, recital 13

[15]             Swedish air navigation service provider LFV and Highlands and Islands Airports (HIAL) outsource many of their support services

[16]             Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 549/2004

[17]             The Network Management Function (NMF) was established
under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 677/2011, and Eurocontrol was
nominated as the Network Manager (NM) through a Commission Decision of July
2011

[18]             Regulation (EC) No 1108/2009 of 21 October 2009 (OJ L
309, 24.11.2009, p. 51)

[19]             Refer to Article 65a of Regulation (EC) 216/2008 of 20
February 2008 (OJ L 79, 19.3.2008, p. 1) as amended

[20]             Belgium, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom