WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/99 by Giuseppe Nisticò (PPE-DE) to the Council. Air fares.
Date: 1999-09-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Calabria, air freight rate, free competition, public service

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/19

could still be dated 25 days ahead. This system never created any problems, particularly as the eggs were
kept in cold storage throughout. Since accession, this system has been changed and the eggs have to be
collected twice a week in order to be dated 25 days ahead. Can the Commission envisage allowing an
exception to this rule in view of the great distances involved?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission has already provided for an exception to the general rule for collecting eggs for Sweden
and Finland as requested by the Honourable Member. By Commission Regulation (EC) No 505/98 of
3 March 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 introducing detailed rules for implementing
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs (1), the following provision
was added to Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1274/91 of 15 May 1991 (2) on the common marketing
standards for eggs:

However, in Finland and Sweden delivery or collection from producers to packing centres or to the
industry may take place once a week only in those cases where the temperature at which eggs are
kept at the farm in artificially maintained below 14(cid:176)C.

(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998.
(2) OJ L 121, 16.5.1991.

(2000/C 219 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1732/99

by Giuseppe Nistic(cid:242) (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 September 1999)

Subject: Air fares

For some time now both the Commission and the Court of Justice have, in the performance of their
respective duties, called on the European airlines to ensure that their activities comply with the principle of
free competition and meet the expectations of their customers. Meanwhile, huge amounts of State aid have
been granted (cid:129) with Commission approval (cid:129) to a number of national airlines, including Alitalia. The
sector is regulated almost entirely by various Community rules, compliance with which the Commission is
required to monitor on the basis of clear rules.

However, the fares charged for air travel on Italian domestic flights, particularly flights to southern Italy,
work out considerably higher per kilometre than the fares charged on European routes. This situation
severely and unfairly limits the development potential of the southern regions and in particular Calabria,
given its location.

Community legislation suggests that public service contracts are the most suitable means of ensuring that
the needs of less-favoured sectors of the population are met. In the course of the public hearings before
the European Parliament, President Prodi declared his readiness to endorse Parliament(cid:146)s initiatives.

In view of the foregoing:

(cid:129) Is the Council satisfied with the way in which the principles and rules laid down by Community

legislation are implemented?

(cid:129) Does the Council regard the public service contract as an instrument that can be used not only by

national governments, but also by regional governments?

(cid:129) Does the Council envisage taking action to establish a common per kilometre rate for air fares to
apply to all European countries, possibly within a limited margin of fluctuation, to ensure enhanced
cohesion and integration within the Community?

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?