98/630/EC: Commission Decision of 30 October 1998 on the application of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/67/EC to Stuttgart airport (Flughafen Stuttgart GmbH) (notified under document number C(1998) 3335) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1998-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baden-Württemberg, airport, derogation from EU law, market access, provision of services, transport infrastructure

11. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 300/25

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 30 October 1998

on the application of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/67/EC to Stuttgart airport
(Flughafen Stuttgart GmbH)

(notified under document number C(1998) 3335)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(98/630/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15
October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at
Community airports (1), and in particular Article 9(5)
thereof,

Having regard to the request for approval of the decision
of the German authorities of 30 July 1998 and after
consultation of those authorities,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

I. SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION NOTIFIED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF
GERMANY

1. The notification presented by the German

authorities

By letter of 30 July 1998, received by the Commission on
3 August 1998, the German authorities notified a request
to approve the decision of the Government of the Federal
Republic of Germany of 23 July 1998 to grant to Stuttgart
airport (Flughafen Stuttgart GmbH) an exemption to:

— ban self-handling for the categories of services listed
under point 4, with regard to the physical handling of
incoming, outgoing or
freight and mail, whether

being transferred, between the air terminal and the
aircraft, and points 5.4 (excluding the transport of
crew), 5.5 and 5.6 of the Annex to the Directive. This
exemption is granted, on the basis of Article 9(1)(d) of
the Directive, until 31 December 2000.

Pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Directive, the Commission
published an extract from the said notification in the
Official Journal of the European Communities (2) and
invited interested parties to submit comments.

the Directive,

In accordance with Article 9(5) of
the
German Government was consulted by the Commission
on the Commission’s draft evaluation on 24 September
1998. The German authorities responded to this consulta-
tion with written comments forwarded by a letter dated 1
October 1998.

Basis of the exemption

The general
rules for access to the groundhandling
services market are set out in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Directive. These rules clearly state the principle that most
categories of groundhandling services should be opened
up to the maximum possible extent. For an airport with a
volume of
the Directive
provides for recognition of the right to self-handle as
from 1 January 1998 and opens up the handling market
to third parties as from 1 January 1999. However, because
of the specific situation and role of an airport, and in

traffic like that of Stuttgart

(1) OJ L 272, 25. 10. 1996, p. 36.

(2) OJ C 267, 26. 8. 1998, p. 11.

L 300/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 11. 98

particular constraints of safety and security, but also space
and capacity, which can arise in certain parts of most
airports, the Directive does not impose total freedom but
requires a minimum degree of opening up of both self-
handling and services to third parties for four categories
of services located air-side, i.e. in a particularly sensitive
area of
the airport. These categories concern ramp
handling, baggage handling, fuel handling and certain
freight and mail handling operations.

Article 9 of Directive 96/67/EC also takes account of the
fact that, in certain very special cases, severe space and
capacity problems prevent the opening-up of the market
to the degree provided for. In such cases, exemptions may
be granted on a temporary basis to give the airports the
time to overcome the constraints. These exemptions can
therefore be only exceptional
in nature and are not
intended to automatically give airports an extra trans-
itional period in addition to that already provided for in
Article 1 of the Directive.

An exemption can be granted only on the basis of
specific space or capacity constraints. This is the basis on
which the German authorities have granted the above-
mentioned exemption in accordance with Article 3 of the
German ‘Verordnung (cid:129)ber Bodenabfertigungsdienste auf
Flugpl(cid:132)tzen und zur (cid:142)nderung weiterer luftrechtlicher
Vorschriften' (3)
transposing Directive 96/67/EC into
national law.

2. Situation regarding handling at Stuttgart airport

2.1. Presentation of the airport

Half of the company running Stuttgart airport (Flughafen
Stuttgart GmbH) is owned by the Land of Baden-W(cid:129)rt-
temberg, the other shareholder being the city of Stuttgart.

The airport is completely surrounded to the north by the
motorway linking Karlsruhe to Munich, and by housing
on the other sides. Part of the site to the south is reserved
for American military installations.

The airport has a single runway (east-west). The 1996
renovation and extension now enable it to receive long-
haul traffic. The development work has enabled it to
become the region’s main airport, where 29 scheduled
and 2 charter airlines operate. In 1997 it handled traffic of
6,9 million passengers, up 7,7 % on the previous year.
With estimated growth of 5 % for the coming years, the

(3) Bundesgesetzblatt 1997 Teil I Nr. 82, 16 Dezember 1997;

2885.

airport should double its traffic by 2010. Much work has
been done to prepare for this growth, including the reali-
sation of an additional car park, and the current construc-
tion of an Office Centre, and the on-going extension of
the new Terminal 3 to
Terminal 1. The building of
replace the old terminal installations, Terminal 4, new
cargo installations, general aviation areas and a rail link to
the Hamburg-Stuttgart-Munich line are at the planning
stage. The southern part will also be completely altered,
with a DEM 20 million project to redesign and regroup
part of the US army installations. The airport should then
be able to make use of some space in that area. Lack of
space forces the airport to plan the work very carefully, so
as to ensure continuity of service by transferring passen-
gers and freight to the various installations as the building
work progresses.

The changes should help to cater for demand and double
the number of gate parking positions for Terminal 1.

2.2. Groundhandling services at the airport

When the German authorities made the decision, the
groundhandling market was, in practice, open as regards
services to third parties and self-handling for all the activ-
ities mentioned in the Annex to the Directive, apart from
those covered by points 3 (baggage handling), 4 (physical
handling of mail and freight), and 5 (air-side operations).

At Stuttgart, operations concerning aircraft guidance
(point 5.1) and parking assistance (point 5.2) may not be
opened up to competition; these operations are carried
out solely by means of the radio guidance system.

The decision of the German authorities concerns opera-
tions between the airport and the aircraft relating to the
physical handling of mail and freight (point 4 of the
Annex to the Directive), the loading and unloading of the
aircraft and the transport of passengers and baggage (part
of point 5.4), aricraft take-off (point 5.5) and the moving
of the aircraft (point 5.6).

The aim of the exemption is therefore to preserve the
status quo regarding self-handling. On the other hand,
from 1 January 1999, a second supplier will be allowed to
provide services
to third parties where the airport
managing body was the sole supplier for those services on
the date of notification, so ensuring the minimum choice
required by Article 6 of the Directive as regards ground-
handling services to third parties.

11. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 300/27

II. CONSTRAINTS REFERRED TO BY THE GERMAN

AUTHORITIES

ment too close to the aircraft positions, thus ruling out
many potential parking positions.

The exemption is based on the airport’s current space
problems which will be aggravated by the substantial
works to be carried out in the coming years and the
particular difficulties to be expected with the arrival of
new baggage handling operators. According to the
German authorities, the available space should be suffi-
cient for a second service provider but not also for addi-
tional self-handling users.

It is based mainly on the dossier prepared by the airport
and presented by Gleiss, Lutz, Hootz & Hirsch as well as
the study by Professor Heimerl ‘Kapazit(cid:132)t der Anlagen
des Flughafen Stuttgart' (Capacity of facilities at Stutta-
gart airport).

1. Problems with equipment parking

According to the German authorities, these problems are
serious in two areas.

1.1. Available space

Firstly, only four of the 39 aircraft positions allow gate
parking. A fifth should be added when the extension to
Terminal 1 is complete. Of the many remaining posi-
tions, 18 require pusher tugs to be used to move the
aircraft (point 5.6 of the Annex to the Directive). These
are the positions located along the installations on the
north side of the airport. These tugs are heavy, quite
difficult to park, and must stay near the positions.

Similarly, the large number of distant positions require
the use of many shuttle buses to carry passengers and
sufficient trolleys to ensure that baggage is moved fast
enough over long distances (point 5.4 of the Annex).

While equipment can be parked at the head of aircraft for
positions located along the installations on the north side,
the German authorities consider that this cannot be done
for positions on the tarmac on the south side, since they
are already very close to taxiway N, at the minimum
safety distance. Moreover, at night, nearly all the positions
would be used to park aircraft,
thus preventing their
temporary use as equipment parking areas.

1.2. Safety

The free parking procedure with radio guidance as prac-
tised in Stuttgart — i.e. with no guiding vehicle on the
tarmac — would make it dangerous to park any equip-

Traffic on the tarmac is considered to be very dense,
especially since all aircraft have to access the runway via
the same point (K) (4).

the number of aircraft needed to
Taking account of
handle peaks in freight and passenger demand, including
charters (Stuttgart
is an important centre for holiday
flights to southern Europe), the airport currently occupies
an estimated 11 000 m2 for groundhandling equipment.
This calculation is based on the ‘dynamic' area of the
necessary equipment
space occupied on the
ground +50 % for aircraft movements).

(‘static'

The German authorities nevertheless
that
account must be taken of the changes due to competition
regarding the market shares of the current monopoly
operator and the repercussions on its own equipment
needs and hence the space required to park it.

consider

Moreover, according to the German authorities,
is
possible to release new space in the short term, namely:

it

— a triangular space of some 200 m2 in the eastern area
near the new fire station, which could be used for
parking light equipment,

— certain spaces in the southern area which are or will
shortly be freed by the US army, along with the asso-
ciated grassed areas. Some of this space is currently
used to park vehicles and store building materials. The
space occupied by these materials will gradually
become available as work progresses,

— finally, additional space may be released in June 1999

when taxiway M is moved.

2. Baggage handling problems

According to the dossier prepared by the airport and
presented by Gleiss, Lutz, Hootz and Hirch, partly
rejected by the German authorities, baggage handling
requires staff of eight drivers for Terminal 1, three for
Terminal 2, and the following equipment: 165 trolleys, 21
tractors and 80 loaders. The study claims that the arrival
of other operators would cause serious problems for the
baggage sorting system. It is difficult to estimate how
much equipment a new arrival would need, since it would
depend on how many aircraft he had to handle. The study
is based on a requirement, according to the type of
aircraft, varying from one to 15, and an estimate of five to
10 therefore seems reasonable. The study makes no esti-
mate, however, of the needs of new operator(s) according

(4) Plan S 21 Flughafen Stuttgart GmbH 27/02/98.

L 300/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 11. 98

to their customers — considering that to be impossible
— only of transport equipment needs. A distinction is
made according to whether the new operator uses only
his own facilities (variant 1), his own drivers and tractors
but rents trolleys from the airport (variant 2) or his own
drivers but with airport tractors and trolleys (variant 3).

According to the indications in the presented dossier it
would not be possible to allow several operators to use the
baggage sorting building. The new operator(s) would
therefore have to park outside at all times or at least be
ready to receive baggage delivered by airport personnel.
There is very little space at the outlet of the system as any
waiting trolleys would block bus traffic on the service
road. This would also reduce the space currently used by
the airport and prevent proper handling of special (non-
standard) and last-minute baggage.

Despite the study, the German authorities consider that
in spite of the resulting problems for managing trolley
traffic near the terminal, it would not be impossible to
allow a second operator for baggage handling.

Therefore, according to the German authorities, in view of
the space freed and the loss of market share by the
current monopoly operator, sufficient space for a new
services provider could be made available at the airport by
1 January 1999 without affecting quality of service or the
expansion potential of
installations. The
German authorities have also expressed a preference for a
new service provider, advantageous for all carriers at the
airport, rather than a user who would serve his own
aircraft only.

the airport

III. REACTIONS OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES

The various interested parties have been asked to express
their opinions following the publication of
the noti-
fication from the German authorities in accordance with
Article 9(3) of the Directive.

traffic, and
would depend mainly on the volume of
consider that better use of current space and a reduction
in equipment used by the airport would allow parking
space to be provided for the equipment. They add that
space is still available in empty hangars and where winter
equipment is currently stored. As regards baggage opera-
tions, the airlines acknowledge that there may be space
problems in the baggage hall and say that they have
accepted that trolley loading and unloading operations in
the hall should be carried out by the airport. They do
consider, however, that where there are no space prob-
lems for transport to or from aircraft, these operations
should be opened up in accordance with the Directive.

IV. EVALUATION OF THE EXEMPTION IN THE
LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF DIRECTIVE
96/67/EC

1. The rules in force concerning groundhandling

1.1. The scope for limiting access to the market

Council Directive 96/67/EC provides for the market to be
opened up to different extents as a function of the way
groundhandling services that are provided (self-handling
or service suppliers) and the level of traffic at the airport.
With annual traffic of 6,4 million passengers in 1997,
Stuttgart airport must, in accordance with Annex 5 to the
‘Verordnung (cid:129)ber Bodenabfertigungsdienste auf Flug-
pl(cid:132)tzen und zur (cid:142)nderung weiterer luftrechtlicher Vors-
chriften' (5) of 10 December 1997 transposing Directive
for
96/67/EC into national
groundhandling services for third parties to two users
from 1 January 1998.

law, open up the market

The general rules governing self-handling for the service
categories listed in the German authorities’ notification
are set out in Article 7(2) of the Directive. Those rules
have been incorporated into the provisions of paragraph
3(2) of the German regulations transposing the Directive.
Under the terms of those various articles a Member State
may restrict self-handling to two users. The latter must
therefore be selected on the basis of relevant, objective,
transparent and non-discriminatory criteria.

However, where specific space or capacity constraints,
arising in particular from the rate of utilisation or of space
occupation make it impossible to authorise self-handling
to the extent provided for by the Directive, the Member
State concerned may, on the basis of Article 9(1)(d),
abolish that right or restrict it to a single user.

The airline associations tend to refute the German author-
ities’ arguments. These associations state that increasing
the number of operators would not necessarily increase
requirements for parking space or buildings, since this

However, under Article 9(2) any such exemption must:

(5) See footnote (3).

11. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 300/29

— specify the category or categories of ground handling
services for which the exemption is granted and the
specific constraints of available space or capacity
which justify it,

— conformity with the principles of compliance with the
aims of
the Directive, absence of distortions of
competition, and the extent of the measure referred to
in Article 9(2) of the Directive.

— be accompanied by a plan of appropriate measures to

overcome the constraints.

Moreover, pursuant to Article 9(2), it must not:

— unduly prejudice the aims of the Directive,

— give rise to distortions of competition,

— extend further than necessary.

Thus, as again pointed out by the Commission in its
Decisions of 14 January 1998 on Frankfurt and Dussel-
dorf airports (6), the main aim of the Directive is to liber-
alise the groundhandling services market. The restrictions
imposed on third parties consist of restrictions of freedom
of such parties to provide such services. By analogy with
the State measures restricting the freedom to provide
services (7), the measures likely to exclude or prohibit the
activities of service providers or, in the present instance,
those of users wishing to self-handle, even if they apply
without distinction to national service providers or users
and to those in other Member States, must be justified by
overriding public-interest
and not by
economic factors and must, moreover, be in proportion to
the aims pursued.

requirements

1.2. Procedure

The German authorities undertook to make the entry into
force of the exemption decision subject to the Commis-
sion’s decision.

Thus an exemption may not be granted with the objective
of allowing the airport a further general adaptation period
in addition to that already granted by Article 1 of the
Directive. It must permit the airport to overcome the
specific constraints which it may encounter when the
market is opened up. Any exemption must therefore be
examined in the light of
the specific constraints put
forward in justification of the impossibility of opening up
the market within the time allowed. In addition,
in
accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities, any exception must be inter-
preted strictly and when the scope of an exemption is
determined this must take account of the purpose of the
measure in question.

It is in the light of these considerations that this exemp-
tion has to be examined.

the Directive,

the
In accordance with Article 9(4) of
Commission has made a detailed analysis of the alleged
space and capacity constraints, whether the decision taken
is appropriate to those constraints, and the measures put
forward to overcome them. Its examination drew upon
the studies provided by the German authorities, and upon
the visit that it made to Stuttgart airport on 24 August
1998 and, finally, benefited from the technical assessment
made at its request by Symonds Travers Morgan.

2. Examination of the constraints referred to by the

German authorities

As pointed out in its two decisions on the airports at
Frankfurt and Dusseldorf (8),
the Commission’s exam-
ination must address:

2.1. Available space

— the existence and scope of the constraints justifying
the exemption and the inability to provide openings
to the extent provided for by the Directive; only space
and/or capacity constraints may be taken into account;

— the plan of the appropriate action that is intended to
overcome those constraints; that plan must be credible
and unconditional and include a timetable for the
implementation of those measures;

(6) Commission Decisions 98/387/EC and 98/388/EC of 14

January 1998, OJ L 173, 18. 6. 1998, p. 32.

(7) Judgments of 25 July 1991, M(cid:130)diawet,

[1991] ECR p. 4007

and C-76/90, S(cid:132)ger: Dennemeyer,

(8) See Footnote (6).

[1991] ECR, p. 4221.

Stuttgart airport currently has 39 aircraft parking posi-
tions, 18 of which require the use of pusher tugs (TIPO
positions). The Commission experts observed that it was
quite feasible to park equipment at the head of aircraft in
radio
airport’s
these positions. The
guidance of aircraft to their positions prevents parking of
equipment for safety reasons is unaccptable since this is
common in many international airports and poses no
particular problem. This problem can be solved by clear
marking of parking places and supervision to ensure
proper safety of the aircraft position when the aircraft
arrives — normal safety procedures at many airports with
nose-in parking.

argument

that

L 300/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 11. 98

are

the

based

national

The standards and recommended practices of the Inter-
national Civil Aviation organisation — and mainly Annex
14 of the Convention on international civil aviation — on
which
recommendations
concerning aircraft stands provide, for the various types of
aircraft, the space to be reserved as safety areas, but also
for the purpose of parking the equipment. According to
the expertise requested by the Commission, because of
the type of aircraft to be accommodated, a space of 10m
by 6m could be freed on either side of the nose of the
aircraft. On this basis, on the 18 stands located on the
northern side of the airport (stands TYPO), a surface of
2 100 m2 could accommodate the equipment for these
stands alone.

In 21 positions, however, aircraft can manoeuvre alone
without assistance from pusher tugs. It is not therefore
possible to park equipment around these positions. On
the other hand, operations require less equipment; besides
buses for passengers, only gangways and starter units are
needed.

this contributes

It is also acknowledged that many aircraft park on the
tarmac overnight and that
to some
congestion early in the morning. The aircraft take a rela-
tively short time to leave the airport, however, and all
groundhandling equipment is in use during this peak
period. It does not therefore seem impossible to part
equipment overnight near the aircraft positions.

It should also be noted that, from late 1998, the airport
will gain an additional gate parking position, followed,
but not before the end of the works, by a further four,
which should allow space to be freed for parking equip-
ment on remote positions, even temporarily during the
day, without adversely affecting the airport’s current
capacity.

As regards the claim that it was not possible to estimate
the impact of the arrival of new operators, most airports
have done so, and especially those which have been the
subject of an exemption decision, on the basis of various
possible scenarios regarding potential operators. Further-
more, the airport has provided quite detailed information
regarding the consequences of opening up the baggage
system. Thus there is no reason why the same exercise
should not be carried out
for other groundhandling
operations.

Since, in application of the German authorities’ decision,
a second service provider will be allowed to operate in the
airport from 1 January 1999, the survey requested by the
Commission assessed the potential impact of the arrival
of a self-handling user.

The German regulation transposing the Directive has
adopted the size, in decreasing order, of the traffic volume
— whether passengers or freight — handled by the user
at the airport as one of its objective criteria for selecting
users who could be authorised to self-handle if they were
limited in number.

If Lufthansa, the main airline at the airport, were to opt
there would be a major impact on
for self-handling,
groundhandling owing to the number of Lufthansa flights
using the airport, as it could handle its own aircraft and
those of its subsidiary, Condor. The amount of additional
equipment required can be estimated by examining the
flight timetable. Account must be taken of the fact that,
in general terms, operator proliferation causes an increase
in equipment requirements since each operator then has
to cater for its own peaks, which do not necessarily coin-
cide with those of the airport as in the case of a single
the monopoly operator
operator. On the other hand,
needs less equipment due to the loss of some of his
customers.

In view of the number of Lufthansa flights using the
it can be estimated that if Lufthansa were to
airport,
self-handle,
the airport would need almost 30 % less
equipment. However, taking as a basis the busiest time of
day, 10 of the 18 flights handled simultaneously at the
airport are Lufthansa flights. Lufthansa would need the
equivalent of almost 55 % of all the equipment used on
the airport at that time. It would therefore seem that
25 % (55 %-30 %) more space would be needed, in view
of Lufthansa’s flight timetables, ignoring the fact that a
new service provider could also be operating from
January.

Given the needs set out in the study supporting the
German authorities’ dossier,
this would correspond to
additional space of almost 2 750 m2. This need could be
satisfied with the available space referred to above, in
addition to that mentioned by the German authorities,
combined with better use of space at the head of aircraft.

Again, comparison with other airports experiencing over-
crowding problems shows that the fact that the airport is
coordinated at presented does not automatically mean
that
the market cannot be opened up to the extent
provided for by the Directive.

Were a carrier other than Lufthansa, such as Deutsche
BA, the second biggest carrier in terms of traffic, to apply
for self-handling, some 15 % extra would be needed at
the busiest time of its flight timetable. It should not be
impossible to meet this need with the space identified
above.

11. 11. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 300/31

The German authorities have not therefore demonstrated
that no user wishing to self-handle can be allowed in the
airport. On the other hand,
it does not seem to be
possible to accept a second user and thus satisfy in full
the requirements of the Directive and the German regula-
tion on self-handling.

2.2. Baggage handling

Baggage routing is one of the main points of the exemp-
tion and the companies that reacted to the notification
acknowledge the difficulties with the baggage delivery
system. An association of carriers refers to an agreement
between carriers to the effect that, owing to the limited
space in the baggage sorting room, loading and unloading
between the belt and the trolleys should be carried out
only by the airport.

It has to be acknowledged that this room is small and, at
times, congested. The same applies to the requirement to
limit incoming traffic owing to capacity problems.

Baggage is recovered manually from the conveyor belt,
and not by chutes with automatic baggage recognition. It
is placed on waiting trolleys destined for particular flights.
This is the task that carriers have decided to leave to the
airport personnel owing to the lack of space along the
belt and the manual baggage recognition system.

On the other hand, it dos not matter very much how
many operators handle the carriage of baggage from the
system to the aircraft as long as the flow of trolleys is
carrefully controlled. Within the baggage handling hall
the total number of trolleys needed at any particular
moment depends not on the number of operators but
rather on the number of flights to be serviced. Strict
control of trolley flow and of the number of trolleys
allowed into the areas, accepting only the number of
trolleys required for handling operations at that time,
would avoid congesting the baggage transfer hall. Baggage
is managed in this way at airports already open to
competition, as the airport is naturally entitled to impose
administrative and supervisory rules on all operators in
order to ensure that the system operates smoothly. It has
not therefore been shown that it is impossible to allow
another operator into the baggage sorting building.

case of Stuttgart airport, the problem is caused by the lack
of space for waiting trolleys in front of the doors of the
system. The entrance to the baggage system is actually
located between the doors where passengers arrive, along
these doors are very close
the bus lanes. Moreover,
together and front-loading buses have to be used. Trolleys
cannot therefore be allowed to wait here in large numbers
and the could not be parked nearby for another user in
addition to the second service provider allowed for in the
German authorities’ decision.

It is because of this problem of parking near the system,
rather than because of a problem inside the building, that
we acknowledge that a self-handling user could not be
allowed in addition to two operators providing ground-
handling services for third parties from January 1999.

However, as stated above, it has not been demonstrated
that a self-handling user could not be allowed to operate
on the other parts of the airport, especially for aircraft-
side operations. The refusal to accept a user loading and
unloading his own baggage at the aircraft cannot therefore
be accepted.

3. Measures planned

In accordance with the provisions of Article 9(2) of the
Directive, the German authorities must present a schedule
of appropriate measures designed to overcome the
constraints cited.

airport management body,

An expansion and renovation plan has been adopted by
the
involving extending
Terminal 1 and rebuilding Terminal 3; this work will
allow four new gate parking positions to be created in
place of the present hangar, which will serve as a terminal
as soon as work begins on Terminal 3. A rail link to ICE
train services is also planned. Finally, the freight area is to
be completely reorganised.

A plan to extend the airport site has also been presented
but has aroused considerable controversy.

There are plans for a new hall to park groundhandling
equipment.

It must nevertheless be acknwledeged that the prolifera-
tion of operators makes it harder to manage them and the
movements of their trolleys. Such flow control is funda-
mental and any weakness in its operation could reduce
the overall efficiency of the airport. Efficient flow control
can only be achieved if there are no problems upstream
or downstream of the baggage sorting system. Yet, in the

Moreover, there will be space for groundhandling equip-
ment in the new freight centre to be built on land in the
southern area to be freed by the US army. The dossier
presented in support of the German authorities’ noti-
fication includes an assurance that enough space will be
cleared there to enable the groundhandling services
market to be fully opened up by early 2001.

L 300/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11. 11. 98

The work should be completed by the end of 2000 and
the airport will in any case open the hall for storing
groundhandling equipment by that date. Similarly, the
construction of
the new terminals will allow baggage
handling operations to begin in accordance with the
provisions of the Directive.

— prohibit

self-handling solely for baggage-handling
operations between the aircraft and the air terminal
(part of point 5.4 of the Annex to the Directive),
— limit self-handling to a single user for all the other
operations mentioned in the notification received by
the Commission on 3 August 1998,

4. Compliance with the criteria of Article 9(2) of the

Directive

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

As regards the conformity of the exemption with the
principles set out in the Directive, Article 9(2) states that
the exemption must not extend further than necessary.

the exemption,

As regards the duration of
the work
schedule shows that it will not be possible to open up the
market to the minimum extent required by the Directive,
i.e. to two service providers and two self-handling users,
before the work is completed, namely at the end of 2000.
The duration requested therefore seems to be propor-
tional to the applicable constraints. Regarding the exent
of
the notification
contains an exemption that is broader than necessary,
and
firstly for prohibiting any self-handling users
secondly for extending the prohibition to operations for
which the necessary space could be allocated.

the measure, on the other hand,

V. CONCLUSION

Stuttgart airport does not have structural
space and
capacity problems that prevent any opening-up of the
groundhandling services market. The decision of
the
German authorities also limits exemption to the prohibi-
tion of self-handling operations. However, with the excep-
tion of operations involving the transport of baggage
between the aircraft and the airport, the German authori-
ties have not demonstrated that no user wishing to self-
handle can be admitted at the airport. On the other hand,
the space available means that no more than one self-
handling user can be admitted for the other operations
covered by the exemption.

The exemption presented by the German authorities
should therefore:

Article 1

The Decision of 23 July 1998 to grant an exemption to
Stuttgart airport, as notified to the Commission on 3
is hereby approved by the Commission
August 1998,
provided that the Federal Republic of Germany amends it
as follows:

— prohibit self-handling until 31 December 2000 for
baggage transport between the air terminal and the
aircraft as defined in point 5.4 of the Annex to the
Directive,

— limit self-handling to a single user until 31 December
2000 for the activities referred to in points 4, 5.5, 5.6
and 5,4 of the Annex to the Directive with regard to
loading and unloading the aircraft and the transport of
passengers between the air terminal and the aircraft.

Article 2

The Federal Republic of Germany shall notify the
Commission of
the exemption decision amended in
accordance with Article 1, before it enters into force.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of
Germany.

Done at Brussels, 30 October 1998.

For the Commission

Neil KINNOCK

Member of the Commission