WRITTEN QUESTION E-1735/99 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Rules on cross-border noise nuisance.
Date: 1999-09-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, North Brabant, noise pollution, pollution control measures, transfrontier pollution

C 219 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Reply

(14 February 2000)

The third liberalisation package for

the Community aviation market came into force on
1.
1 January 1993 (1). In this context, Regulation (EEC) 2409/92 established the principle of tariff freedom
for Community air carriers operating on intra-Community routes. This freedom does not, however,
prevent Member States from intervening under certain conditions to suspend excessively high tariffs or
to stop too great a reduction in tariffs. It should also be noted that the same Regulation contains specific
provisions for taking account of air transport users(cid:146) interests.

The liberalisation has resulted mainly in offers of new promotional and special fares, rather than in a
generalised reduction in existing fares. Thus the proportion of passengers travelling on regular flights with
cut-price tickets has risen considerably. Bearing in mind also the (cid:145)charter(cid:146) market, it may be concluded that
the vast majority of passengers travels at a reduced price.

The Council took note of the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament in 1998 on the impact of
the third package of air transport liberalisation measures (2).

Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 enables Member States to impose public service

2.
obligations, which are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Over 100 new intra-Community routes have been opened on the basis of the new rules.

The authorities responsible for establishing such public service obligations are designated in accordance
with domestic law, and may vary from Member State to Member State.

3.
The Council has received no Commission proposal for a change to the principles laid down by the
third package of air transport liberalisation measures, such as the setting up of a common per kilometre
rate for air fares to apply to all European countries, as suggested by the Honourable Member.

However, the Council will examine any proposal from the Commission for a reduction in the cost of air
services likely to result in further advantages for consumers.

See Council Regulations (EEC) No 2407/92, 2408/92, 2409/92 published in OJ L 240, 28.8.1992.

(1)
(2) OJ C 80, 16.3.1998, p. 240 et seq.

(2000/C 219 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1735/99

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 September 1999)

Subject: Rules on cross-border noise nuisance

Following questions from concerned inhabitants of the border region between Belgium and the province of
North Brabant in the Netherlands.

I should like to ask:

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view on the absence of European rules on combating and controlling cross-
border noise and vibration nuisance in general, and caused by industrial complexes in particular?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the need for laying down European rules in this respect?

3. Can the Commission say what action it will take in this field and what timescale is involved?

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/21

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

The Commission is aware that present European and national legislation cannot deal properly with noise
and vibration generated in neighbouring Member States.
In particular, the Commission is aware of
industrial sites and airports that are causing problems across borders and about the difficulties faced by
local and national authorities handling these cases. The Commission believes that some harmonisation of
noise legislation would considerably simplify the tasks of these authorities in seeking improvements.

The Commission(cid:146)s green paper on future noise policy (1) gave many reasons to undertake some harmonisa-
tion of noise legislation. As a direct result the Commission is therefore considering presenting a directive
on environmental noise exposure that will provide a basis for such harmonisation. A major element of
such a directive would be the harmonisation of indicators and assessment methods. In order to have clarity
in discussion and information exchange, other elements will be European wide noise mapping, local action
plans, publication of data by the Commission and further improvement of the Community noise emission
policy. The Commission hopes to present a proposal for such a directive to Council and Parliament in the
course of 2000.

The Commission has no intention at this time to include vibrations in such a proposal or to prepare a
separate directive on that subject.

(1) COM(96) 540 final.

(2000/C 219 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-D(cid:246)rfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject:

(cid:145)Understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection(cid:146) of
18 May 1998 between the EU and the USA

On 8 January 1999, Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman of the US House of Representatives(cid:146) Committee on
International Relations, sent a questionnaire to Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan,
in which Mr Gilman
requested the trade commissioner, with regard to the granting of the waiver under paragraph II.4 of the
Understanding, to clarify certain (cid:145)ambiguous(cid:146) formulations.

1.
Has the Commission answered the above questionnaire and, if so, is it prepared to make it available
immediately to the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (INDU)?
Irrespective of whether the questionnaire has been answered, can the Commission give a brief summary of
the progress made in this matter between EU and US institutions?

Has the Understanding entered into legal force and,

2.
authority? Have the national parliaments expressed their views on the Understanding?

if so, on what legal basis and/or by what

Has the US Congress granted the waiver in respect of Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act and,

3.
if so, for how long? What commitments has the Commission entered into in return?

4. What implications does the Understanding have for any prospective accession of Cuba to a post-
LomØ Convention? What effects will it have within the European Union?