Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive on Airport Charges'
Date: 1997-12-10
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air transport, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, liberalisation of the market, provision of services

C 73/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive on
Airport Charges’

(98/C 73/08)

On 11 July 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 84(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned
proposal.

The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 1997. The rapporteur
was Mr von Schwerin.

At its 350th plenary session (meeting of 10 December 1997) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 106 votes to 3, with 7 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The adoption of the third civil aviation package by the
Council in July 1992 represents the final stage in the
liberalization of the aviation sector within the framework
of the completion of the Internal Market. The new
market organization makes it essential that ancillary
aspects of air transport, such as groundhandling services,
computerized reservation systems, air traffic manage-
ment and slot allocation, meet the requirements of the
Single Market. This is also the case with airport charging
systems.

The Commission feels that the proposal for a directive
will create a Community framework for airport charges
based on the principles set out below.

The directive will basically apply to all Community
airports open to commercial traffic where the annual
volume of traffic is at least 250 000 passenger movements
or 25 000 tonnes of freight.

1.1. Cost-relatedness

1.1.1.
Because the airport management body is in a
monopoly situation as regards the provision of airport
facilities and services for which charges are levied, it is
necessary that charging systems set the level of charges
in a reasonable relation to the cost of the facilities and
services which these charges are intended to cover.

1.1.2.
The level of charges should be in a reasonable
relation to the cost of the facilities and services provided,
allowing for a reasonable return on invested capital and
the proper depreciation of assets. They serve to cover
the costs incurred by the relevant airport.

1.2. Transparency

ments will be essential to complete the Community
framework.

1.2.2.
The exchange of information between airports
and users should enable air carriers to be better informed
about the services provided by the airport management
body and their cost and airports must be enabled to take
better account of airlines’ future needs when planning
infrastructure extensions.

This is the precondition for an economically
1.2.3.
active management both of airports and of air carriers,
and corresponds to the requirements of
the basic
principles laid down by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), more particularly in Article 15 of
the Convention on International Civil Aviation signed
on 7 December 1944 in Chicago, as well as in the
Statement by the Council on Charges for Airports and
Air Navigation Services (ICAO Doc. 9082) and included
in the ‘Airport Economics Manual’ (ICAO Doc. 9562).

1.2.4.
The principle of transparency should be intro-
duced and applied in such a way as to take account of
practices and procedures already in use at airports. All
this will help to make the air transport system more
efficient, especially for passengers but also for the
shipment of air freight.

1.3. Non-discrimination

1.3.1.
The implementation of the Single Market
requires the abolition of any form of discrimination
between air traffic services within the EU, since these
are incompatible with the principles of the Single
Market. Member States are called upon to take all the
measures necessary to ensure that the same level of
airport charges is applied at airports to equivalent
intra-Community air services in terms of the aircraft
type and/or characteristics, the distance flown and/or
the administrative and customs formalities.

1.2.1.
In order to ensure that both the principles of
non-discrimination and cost-relatedness are properly
implemented and complied with, transparency require-

1.3.2.
lent intra-Community services must be eliminated.

Current differences in the treatment of equiva-

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/39

1.4. Procedure for modulating charges

Rational airport management and the require-
1.4.1.
ment of sustainable mobility should enable airports
to tailor charges to demand, available capacity and
environmental protection requirements. The proposal
also provides for the introduction of a compulsory
consultation process between airports and their users,
which must be implemented before any adjustment to
charges.

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

2.1.
The provisions of this proposal are to apply to
all airports and airport systems subject to the provisions
of the Treaty and open for commercial traffic. For
smaller airports there are to be limits with regard to
cost-relatedness, modulations of charges, transparency
and consultations.

2.2.
The concept of airports and airport systems
derives from Annex II to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992. The other terms are as far
as possible identical to the definitions in Council
Directive No 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to
the market in ground handling services at airports in the
Community.

2.3.
The Member States should take all necessary
measures to stop discrimination against users (air
carriers) in connection with charges at airports within
the Community.

2.4.
The Member States have to develop a procedure
that discloses whether charges are fair or not. The
Commission feels that information should, in principle,
be provided on:

— the cost of

financing the facilities,

including
depreciation in the value of the assets during the
period concerned and the financing of any facilities
for which the project and the date of commencement
of the works have been duly agreed and, where
appropriate, any administrative permits have been
issued;

— the financial charges;

— the expenditure on operation and maintenance;

— the general administrative charges and various taxes;

— a reasonable return on the capital invested.

Particulars on the regional development of an airport
are approved.

2.5. Without prejudice to the application of the
competition rules of the Treaty, the airport charges
applicable in the major national airport of a Member
State are established at a level which permits airport

management bodies, in order to promote economic and
social cohesion, to support financially the levels of
airport charges in regional airports in the same Member
State.

2.6.
The efficient operation of many small airports,
which play a key role in the Community’s economic and
social cohesion, requires considerable and regular state
or local authority support or, in certain cases, financial
support from larger airports in order to avoid introdu-
cing excessively heavy charges. Moreover, the number
of carriers serving these small airports is very limited
and they may often have daily contacts with the
management body.

The costs should be determined using the prin-
2.7.
ciples of accounting and evaluation generally accepted
in each of the Member States.

2.8.
It is possible to include the environmental costs
due to air traffic and modulate the charges to reflect the
requirements in terms of management of the airport
facilities or any changes in demand and use of the airport
during a given period.

2.9. Of course, these shall not lead to additional
revenue.

2.10.
The airport management body should modulate
charges in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner.
In this connection it may:

— take account of all or part of its income that is not
derived from airport charges when establishing the
total levy of its charges; and

— grant discounts in accordance with the provisions of

the Treaty.

2.11.
There are factors that should be made known
to airport users (air carriers) when setting charges. These
are:

— a clear list of the various services provided by the
airport in return for the amount requested and
the method of calculation used by the airport’s
management body;

— the amount of each category of charges collected at
the airport and the total number of staff deployed
to services which give rise to the collection of charges;
and

— forecasts of the situation at the airport as regards
charges, traffic growth and any proposed invest-
ments.

2.12.

To help airport planning, Member States should

C 73/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.3.98

see that airport users (air carriers) provide the following
information:

— forecasts as regards traffic;

— forecasts as to the composition of their fleet;

— their development projects at the airport; and

— their requirements at the airport concerned.

The Member States should take the necessary
2.13.
steps to see that consultations are held at each airport
at least once a year between the airport management
body and airport users (air carriers), with the aim of
going into the charging system or level, especially in the
event of changes. Consultations should be held at least
two months before any change in the system or the level
of charges.

2.13.1. Member States shall also ensure that airport
users are able to request to be consulted a second time.

2.14.
If national provisions are violated, the Member
States should be obliged to apply effective and appropri-
ate sanctions.

2.15.
The directive is to be incorporated into national
law by 1 January 2002 at the latest. The Member States
are obliged to tell the Commission what legal provisions
are to be used for this.

3. General comments

3.1.
The ESC welcomes the Commission’s initiative
aimed at bringing more transparency into the relation-
ship between charges and services at airports within the
Community that are covered by this directive.

The Commission fits in here with the ESC’s views as
expressed in point 3.2 of its Opinion (1) on the Proposal
for a Council directive on access to the groundhandling
market at Community airports:

‘Initially it will be necessary to establish business
transparency. It will be impossible to contemplate
any further measures for opening up the market
until transparency has been created and one can see
how services relate to prices at the moment.’

3.2.
The Commission’s view that airports are becom-
ing increasingly important for the economic develop-
ment of regions and for business and passenger traffic
is shared. They play an important role in maintaining a
region’s existence, yet they have to operate more and
more in a competitive market. For this, framework

(1) OJ C 301, 13.11.1995, p. 28.

conditions that ensure fair treatment must be guaranteed.
This includes maintaining a proper balance between the
rights and duties of airports and airport users (air
carriers). Care should be taken to see that a dominant
market position is not abused.

3.3.
The ESC considers that any possible improve-
ment of cost structure for reasons of greater transparency
must not be allowed to lead to higher administrative
input in airports or from national authorities. It therefore
feels, for instance, that consultation is only necessary
when there is an need for it, as when infrastructure
changes or modifications to charges are envisaged.

The ESC assumes that existing arrangements at
3.4.
national
level are sufficient to implement penalties
at national level in the event of infringements. The
Commission is asked to illustrate the relevant possibili-
ties. Extra red tape would be contrary to the aims of
this directive!

3.5. Member States where liberalization is already
underway or completed need take no measures to
comply with EU legal requirements.

3.6.
As far as the current situation in the EU is
concerned, the ESC is in favour of distinguishing between
airport charges and the usual national taxes. Here too
the aim should be EU-wide harmonization in order to
create a level playing field. As regards airport charges,
the thing is to harmonize the criteria for adjusting
charges.

3.7.
The ESC feels that the proposal should explain
more clearly what is expected from airport management
bodies when assessing costs and cost-efficiency, for
instance by giving some concrete figures, and also
bearing in mind quality characteristics.

4. Specific comments

4.1.
The ESC thinks that in the directive the Com-
mission has drafted the discrimination concept in terms
that are too general. As regards calculation and risk,
there is a difference for an airport management body
between a user (air carrier) using an airport once a day
or accounting for a significant share of traffic, such as
30, 40 or even 60 %. The ESC therefore feels that the
usual trade and industry bulk discounts should be
allowed where, for example, a better employment of
production equipment results, provided such discounts
are publicly known, cost-related and non-discri-
minatory.

9.3.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 73/41

4.2.
For passengers (consumers) the possibility should
also be considered of allowing lower charges for transit
passengers and/or transit flights to hub airports. This
would counteract discrimination against a whole series
of passengers who are assigned to connecting flights
because of their place of residence.

The ESC agrees with the Commission that
4.3.
adjustments to airport charges to reflect external costs
involved in environmental protection and airport infra-
structure management must not be allowed to generate
additional revenue for airports.

4.4.
Charges and costs within the Community can
only be compared if the generally recognized principles
of book-keeping, accounting and evaluation as well as
environmental protection rules are harmonized. For
instance, there are differences regarding the obligation
to include leasing liabilities in the balance sheet. There
are also differences in assessing the value of fixed and
current assets. Whereas in Germany, for example, the
basic obligation is to list the original value in the balance
sheet, in Britain one has the choice of listing either the
original value or the current market value.

Considerable differences also exist in the handling of
pension funds and in the methods used for calculating
employees’ retirement pensions.

Comparison on this basis is extremely difficult.

4.5.
To improve planning at airports, the ESC sup-
ports the Commission’s call for Member States to see
that users (air carriers) provide the information referred
to in point 2.12. This is in the interests of improving
planning security for airports.

However, in this particular case there are no possibilities
of proportionate compensation by users for investment
errors if the information provided by them is not taken
into account.

4.6.
The ESC welcomes the Commission’s view that
it should be permissible for airport charges to be
staggered depending on the different noise levels of
aircraft. This also applies to the possibility of increasing
the level of take-off and landing charges at certain times
of the day or night in order to reduce noise emissions.
In line with the ESC Opinion on the Green Paper on

Brussels, 10 December 1997.

future noise policy (1),
there must be an EU-wide
framework directive on staggered charges, in order to
avoid distortions of competition.

4.7.
The ESC proposes that the Commission add the
following extra wording to the end of the eighth recital
(whereas):

‘... and therefore requires appropriate incentives to
force through efficiencies, while paying due regard to
quality standards, and improve cost performances.’

4.8.
The first sentence of Article 1 (Aim and scope)
should be expanded to take account of the concepts of
cost and quality effectiveness and should read:

‘The aim of this Directive is to ensure compliance
with the principles of non-discrimination, cost-
relatedness, transparency and cost and quality-
effectiveness as regards airport charges.’

The ESC feels that in Article 4 (Cost-relatedness)

4.9.
a new point 4 should be added, reading as follows:

‘Due to the fact that airports are exposed to limited
competition, Member States must set up criteria and
parameters to measure performances of airports and
develop appropriate incentives to optimise the cost
and quality-effectiveness of airport infrastructure,
facilities and services.’

4.10.
worded as follows:

Point 3 in Article 7 (Consultation) should be

‘If no agreement results from the consultation
process, the interested parties may call upon an
independent arbitrator designated by the Member
State.’

4.11.
The Commission and the Member States must
ensure that air carriers from non-EU countries can only
call upon the application of this directive if the principle
of mutual recognition is guaranteed in their country of
origin.

4.12.
tation deadline of 1 January 2002 to be realistic.

The ESC considers the directive’s implemen-

The ESC calls upon the Commission to include
4.13.
it (i.e. the ESC) among the institutions mentioned in
Article 10.

(1) OJ C 206, 7.7.1997, p. 1.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS