6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/11 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on consultation between airports 
and airport users and on airport charging principles (*) 
(91/C 31/03) 
On 7 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 12 September 1990, in the light of 
the report by Mr Moreland. 
At its 280th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. Introduction—The Commission proposal 
1.1. The Commission's intention is to ensure that 
the services provided by airports should be responsive 
to the needs and preferences of customers (airlines, 
passengers, etc.) and that the charges levied should be 
reasonably related to the services rendered. 
1.2. Consequently the Commission proposal has 
three main elements: 
— the provision of regular consultations between air­
port operators and users, 
— the provision for sufficient and transparent 
exchange of information between airports and their 
users, 
— the establishment of certain general principles to 
which charges for aeronautical services should con­
form. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee believes that, as a generaliza­
tion, there is room for improvement in minimizing the 
discomfort to passengers passing through airports and 
that the monopoly or quasi-monopoly position of many 
airports could cause either a distortion of airport charg­
es or excessive charges. To the extent that the aim of 
the Regulation is to improve the position of users and 
the transparency of decision-making at airports, the 
Committee welcomes the proposal. 
2.2. However, the Committee believes the proposal 
will have only limited impact on users, especially the 
travelling public, as: 
a) many airports already adopt most of the procedures 
proposed; 
(!) OJ No C 147, 16.6. 1990, p. 6. b) the users have only rights to consultation and 
decision-making will remain mainly with the air­
ports. 
2.3. Further the Committee points out that the 
impact of the proposals on user charges is limited 
because: 
a) the subject of 'duty free' goods which has a major 
impact on many airports' accounts is ignored 
(except for an oblique reference in Article 12d). As 
the 'post 1992' position of 'duty free' is not clear 
the Committee believes that the Commission and 
Council should give it urgent consideration; 
b) although the Commission notes the difference in 
accounting bases used by airport authorities (cur­
rent cost versus historic cost), it offers no solutions 
and consequently leaves a situation in which fair 
comparison of accounts between airports is not easy 
or even possible. 
2.4. Apart from the requirement for an annual con­
sultation in Article 3, in its objective of 'regular' consul­
tation, the proposal appears to cover ad hoc consul­
tation rather than 'regular' meetings, say quarterly, 
between airports and users. 
2.5. The proposals refer to taking into account the 
document of the International Civil Aviation Organiza­
tion (ICAO) 9082/2 of 1981 rather than the later 9082/ 
3 of 1986. 
2.6. The costs incurred by airport operators and 
charged to users in the form of fees are also an import­
ant factor in intermodal competition. The Committee 
regrets that the proposal says nothing about how the 
Commission intends to ensure that the equal treatment 
of modes—a principle expounded by it elsewhere—is 
to be achieved with regard to the allocation of infra-
No C 31/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
structure costs. It therefore calls on the Commission to 
give some thought to this matter and present suitable 
proposals forthwith. 
2.7. Consequently the Committee, while welcoming 
the objectives of the Regulation, questions the extent 
of the effect of its impact. This point is further highlight­
ed by the Specific Comments below. 
3. Specific comments 
3.1. Preamble 6 
3.1.1. 'Whereas to foster ... scheduling committees'. 
The Committee welcomes the participation of airports 
in 'slot allocation' and believes the separate proposal 
from the Commission on 'slot allocation' should be 
consistent with the paragraph here. 
3.2. Article 2 
3.2.1. Article 2a 'Airport' 
3.2.1.1. It should be made clear the definition of 
'passenger' includes transit passengers. After the words 
'throughput of at least 1 million passengers per annum' 
add 'on or after the date included in Article 13'. 
3.2.2. Article 2 b) 'Aeronautical services 
and facilities' 
3.2.2.1. This needs to be more precisely defined, e.g. 
it is not clear that it includes or excludes 'air traffic 
control'. 
3.2.3. Article 2 d) 'Authority' 
3.2.3.1. In certain Member States more than one 
authority is responsible for the services referred to here. 
Consequently should be 'authority(ies)'. 
3.3. Article 3 
3.3.1. This article is not written clearly and there 
could be a confusion between informing users on finan­
cial statements and on operational performance and 
consulting users on financial planning and future oper­
ational performance. Also all airports should be in the same basis, and the phrase 'unless, within the limits of 
national law, the authority and users agree otherwise' 
should be deleted. 
This Article would be clearer if it reads as follows: 
1) The authority shall make available to users on an 
annual basis information concerning its perform­
ance which as a minimum shall include the data 
specified in Annex I of this Regulation. 
2) The authority shall consult the users at least every 
twelve months on the future financial and oper­
ational performance of the airport with respect to 
its aeronautical services taking into account the 
information provided in paragraph I and available 
information on financial and operational trends. 
3) As existing paragraph 3. 
3.4. Article 5(2) 
3.4.1. It may be desirable for the competent govern­
mental authority to be—and to be seen to be—indepen­
dent. Consequently, to avoid any confusion, the first 
sentence should be deleted. 
3.5. Article 5(3) 
3.5.1. The phrase 'important changes or new devel­
opments' is vague and should be defined to have 
meaning. 
3.6. Article 6 
3.6.1. The phrase 'reasonable period of notice' is far 
too vague to have meaning. Either a precise time (e.g. 
one month) should be stated or the Article deleted. 
3.6.2. In the light of the comments in 2.4 above it 
would be more appropriate to include in this Article 
that there should be a 'regular' basis of consultations, 
say at least every six months. 
3.7. Article 8 
3.7.1. As stated in 3.1 the Committee welcomes the 
inclusion of airport authorities in 'slot allocation pro­
cedures'. However, the paragraph is confusing with the 
use of the word 'participate' in the light of the further 
reference to 'observers'. 
6. 2. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 31/13 
The paragraph could read: 3.12. Annex 1 (III) 
'Authorities shall be entitled to participate in slot 
allocation procedures which involve their own air­
ports). Further they (and/or their representative 
organization) shall be invited to attend as observers 
of all scheduling conferences relevant to their air-
port(s).' 
It should be noted that this article leaves unclear the 
rights of the authorities in slot allocation. 3.12.1. Some items e.g. 'terminal navigation charges' 
are not under the control of an airport. They should 
be deleted or the article should state clearly that these 
other organizations are obliged to produce relevant 
information. 
3.12.2. Further 'baggage handling' is part of ground 
handling and the reference in Section A(h) should be 
deleted. 
3.8. Article 9 3.13. Annex 11(1) 
3.8.1. As stated in 2.2 Article 9, effectively, leaves an 
authority the possibility of ignoring the consultation, 
'subject where necessary to the appropriate approval'. 
This latter phrase is unduly vague and could be more 
precisely defined. 3.13.1. Is the information on aircraft operators' per­
formance to be supplied individually or collectively ? If 
individually, it could be unfair to airlines to ask them 
to reveal intentions to, inter alia, competitors over a 
five-year period. 
3.9 Article 10 3.14. Annex 11 (II)—Fleet planning 
3.9.1. It is not clear why specific mention is made of 
the Balearic Islands and of the Canary Islands. The 
Committee considers it would be simpler to meet the 
point to state 'where an authority has the responsibility 
for more than one airport serving the same city or 
island or region, the authority ...' 
3.10. Article 12 b) 
3.10.1. In the explanatory memorandum the Com­
mission states that 'charges' shall apply irrespectively 
to traffic between Member States and to traffic within 
a Member State (page 18). 
Consequently the Committee assumes the phrase in 
Article 12 b) 'non-discriminatory' is designed to meet 
this point. 
However, such a phrase may be contrary to the basic 
principle of cost related charges and to the interests of 
domestic airlines serving regions in need of develop­
ment. 3.14.1. Fifteen years is unnecessarily long. 
3.15. Annex II (111) 
3.15.1 The Commission should clarify: 
a) over what period the information is to be given; 
b) the meaning of 'eventual use'; 
c) whether item (6) 'car park stands' means either 'car 
park space' or 'aircraft stands'. 
3.15.2. Airlines are asked to show the actual dimen­
sions of the special facilities they will need in the future. 
While this information could be of value, the final 
decision on space has to be for airports to determine 
as part of their normal planning processes taking into 
account the characteristics of the demands of all air­
ports users. 
The Commission should either exclude 'non-discrimi­
natory' or define it more precisely. 4. Further consideration 
3.11. Article 13 
The date (1 July 1990) clearly needs revision, say, a 
date six months approximately after the date of the 
Council decision. 4.1. In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the explanatory 
memorandum the Commission refers to its concern 
about state aid to airports and to the potential use of 
its powers under Articles 92 to 94 and also states it is 
examining certain charges to airlines—in particular en 
route navigation charges. The Committee considers the 
implication of these paragraphs to be highly significant 
No C 31/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 2. 91 
—indeed more significant than the effect of the pro- its conclusions on these issues with consequent pro­
posed Regulation—and asks the Commission to give posals as soon as practicable. 
Done at Brussels, 18 October 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
(91/C 31/04) 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development programme in the field of biotechnology (1990-1994) (x) 
On 6 June 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 130Q (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research, which was responsible for preparing 
the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 7 September 1990. The 
Rapporteur was Mr De Tavernier. 
At its 280th plenary session (meeting of 18 October 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously 
The Committee welcomes the proposed programme 
and broadly approves the Commission proposal. At the 
same time, it would make the following observations 
and recommendations. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Research strand A—Life sciences and technol­
ogies—of the framework programme of Community 
activities in the field of research and technological 
development (R&TD) (1990-1994) (2) provides for the 
adoption and implementation of a new specific R&TD 
programme in the field of biotechnology for the five 
year period from 1990 to 1994, for which a proposed 
allocation of 164 million ECU is to be provided from 
the Community budget. 
1.2. One percent of this sum is to be spent on the 
centralized dissemination and exploitation of the results 
of the specific and supplementary research programmes, 
as provided for in Article 4 of the 1990-1994 framework 
programme Decision. 
(*) OJ No C 174, 16. 7. 1990, p. 53. 
(2) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 28. 1.3. Annex II [Point 4(A)] of the framework pro­
gramme Decision states that the objective of this pro­
gramme—the fourth of its kind after BEP(3), BAP(4) 
and BRIDGE (5)—'is to reinforce basic biological know­
ledge as the common and integrated foundation needed 
for applications in agriculture, industry, health, 
nutrition and the environment'. 
1.4. The following is a list of the sectors covered by 
the proposed programme together with an indicative 
percentage breakdown of the appropriations: 
Area 1: Molecular approaches 35-40 
— Protein structure and function, 
(3) Programme in the field of biomolecular engineering (1982-
1986) (OJ No L 375, 20. 12. 1981, p. 1, as amended by OJ 
No L 305, 8. 11. 1983, p. 11). 
(4) Research action programme in the field of biotechnology 
(1985-1989) (OJ No L 83, 23. 3. 1985, p. 1, as amended by 
OJ No 206, 30. 7. 1988, p. 38). 
(5) Specific R&TD programme in the field of biotechnology 
(1990-1994) (OJ No L 360, 9. 12. 1989, p. 32).