2000/122/EC: Commission Decision of 5 January 2000 on the application of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/67/EC to Düsseldorf Airport (Flughafen Düsseldorf GmbH) (notified under document number C(1999) 5067) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic)
Date: 2000-01-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: North Rhine-Westphalia, airport, market access, provision of services, transport infrastructure, works contract

14.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 39/57

COMMISSION DECISION

of 5 January 2000

on the application of Article 9 of Council Directive 96/67/EC to D(cid:252)sseldorf Airport (Flughafen
D(cid:252)sseldorf GmbH)

(notified under document number C(1999) 5067)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2000/122/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 of 5 October 1999 for approval
of the decision of the German authorities, and after consulting
those authorities,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

1. Scope of the exemption notified by the

Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

1.1. Notification by the German authorities

(1)

the German authorities notified a request
the Government of

By letter received by the Commission on 5 October
for
1999,
approval of
the
Federal Republic of Germany of 30 September 1999 to
grant D(cid:252)sseldorf airport (Flughafen D(cid:252)sseldorf GmbH)
an exemption to:

the decision of

(cid:151) ban self-handling, and

(cid:151) reserve for D(cid:252)sseldorf Airport (Flughafen D(cid:252)sseldorf
GmbH) the provision of services to third parties,

for the categories of services referred to in items 4.1
(with regard to the physical handling of freight, whether

(2)

(3)

(4)

incoming, outgoing or being transferred, between the
air terminal and the aircraft), 5.4 (with regard to the
loading and unloading of the aircraft and the transport
of passengers and baggage between the aircraft and the
terminal), 5.5 and 5.6 of the Annex to the Directive.

This exemption is granted, on the basis of Article
9(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive, from 1 January 2000
It follows the Commission
until 31 December 2001.
a
Decision
derogation granted by the authorities of
the Federal
Republic of Germany on 9 October 1997.

concerning

1998 (2)

January

14

of

of

Pursuant
to Article 9(3)
Commission published an extract
notification in the Official
Journal of
Communities of 26 October 1999 (3)
interested parties to submit their comments.

the Directive,
from the

the
said
the European
and invited

In accordance with Article 9(5) of the Directive, the
Commission consulted the German Government on its
draft evaluation on 24 November 1999 and the German
comments by letter of 29
authorities gave
November 1999.

their

Basis of the exemption

rules on access to the groundhandling
The general
services market are set out in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Directive. These provisions 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 traffic like that of D(cid:252)sseldorf
the Directive provides for recognition of the right to
selfhandle from 1 January 1998 and opens up the
handling market to third parties from 1 January 1999.
However,
the specific
in order to take into account
situation and role of an airport, and in particular the
safety, security, space and capacity constraints which

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996, p. 36.

(2) OJ L 173, 18.6.1998, p. 45.
(3) OJ C 307, 26.10.1999, p. 3.

L 39/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.2.2000

located

impose

services

complete

liberalisation for

can arise in certain parts of most airports, the Directive
four
does not
categories of
in a
the airport, but does
particularly sensitive area of
require a minimum degree of
liberalisation of both
selfhandling and the supply of services to third parties.
concern ramp-handling, baggage-
These
handling,
and
certain
field-handling
mail-handling operations.

categories

air-side,

freight-

and

i.e.

space and capacity constraints prevent

(5) Article 9 of Council Directive 96/67/EC also takes
in certain very special cases,
account of the fact that,
severe
the
opening-up of the market to the degree provided for. In
such cases, exemptions may be granted on a temporary
basis
time to overcome the
constraints. These exemptions can therefore be only
intended to
exceptional
automatically give airports an extra transitional period
in addition to that already provided for in Article 1 of
the Directive.

to give the airports

and are not

in nature

(6) An exemption can be granted only on the basis of
specific space or capacity constraints. This is the basis
on which the German authorities granted an initial
exemption on 9 October 1997. A Commission Decision
of 14 January 1998 (4) confirmed that exemption, but
restricted it to a period ending no later than 1 January
2000.

This is also the basis, in conjunction with Article 9(6) of
the Directive, on which the German authorities have
granted the exemption to which this Decision refers, in
accordance with Article 3 of the German (cid:145)Verordnung
(cid:252)ber Bodenabfertigungsdienst auf Flugpl(cid:228)tzen und zur
Vorschriften(cid:146) (5)
˜nderung weiterer
transposing Directive 96/67/EC into national law.

luftrechtlicher

(8) No new exemption has been requested extending the
the German
exemption granted by the decision of
authorities of 17 April 1998 which hitherto permitted
the restriction of aircraft cleaning (6.1), cabin cooling
and snow removal (6.2), and the rearrangement of the
cabin (6.3) to two users and two service-providers, so
these
services will be opened up to unrestricted
competition from 1 January 2000.

2. Constraints referred to by the German

authorities

(9)

The exemption granted by the German authorities is
based on space and capacity constraints resulting from
the fire in the terminal on 11 April 1996, the increase
from the
in space requirements which would result
opening-up of the market to more than one operator,
and
the
encountered
proposed reconstruction and restructuring plan.

implementing

problems

in

(10)

It relies on the arguments presented in the file drawn up
by D(cid:252)sseldorf airport:

(cid:151) Nachtrag zum Ma(cid:223)nahmenplan des Antrages auf
Flughafen

Verl(cid:228)ngerung
der
D(cid:252)sseldorf GmbH, September 1999

Freistellung

der

(cid:151) Antrag

auf Verl(cid:228)ngerung
Flughafen D(cid:252)sseldorf GmbH, Juli 1999

der

Freistellung

der

(cid:151) Dokumentation

des Ma(cid:223)nahmenplans, Oktober

1998 und April 1999

(cid:151) Netherlands Airport Consultant BV study entitled
liberalising groundhandling to

(cid:145)Consequences of
permit several service providers(cid:146), July 1997.

There is no need to go back over the fact, already
recorded in the Commission Decision of 14 January
1998 (6), that the data indicating a shortage of space
relate exclusively to the 1996 fire and that no structural
problem is cited in justification of the present situation
and the resulting exemption.

2.1. The aftermath of the fire of 11 April 1996

(12)

terminal building and
The fire destroyed the central
rendered the three piers (A, B and C) unusable. As it is
not possible to transit through the central building:

1.2. Situation regarding handling at D(cid:252)sseldorf airport

(11)

(7)

to the exemption granted by the German
Pursuant
authorities on 17 April 1998 following the Commission
Decision of 14 January 1998, the activities covered by
the exemption to which this Decision refers are already
to
covered by an exemption allowing the airport
itself
and
prohibit
and
freight-handling,
transport of passengers
baggage between the aircraft and the terminal
(5.4),
engine starting (5.5), and aircraft movements (5.6). Thus
the exemption to which this Decision refers extends the
exemption granted with respect to such services.

selfhandling
the

reserve

to

to

(4) OJ L 173, 18.6.1998, p. 45.
(5) Bundesgesetzblatt 1997, Part I, No 82, 16 December 1997, p.

2885.

(6) OJ L 173, 18.6.1998, p. 45.

14.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 39/59

(cid:151) several gate positions, including all those on pier B,
have to be used solely as remote positions, thus
generating a substantial
increase in the bussing of
passengers across the apron,

(cid:151) all arrivals initially had to be concentrated in pier C,
the only pier with an operational baggage reclaim
system,

(16)

(cid:151) passenger embarkation modules (D and E) had to be
installed to the east and west; these structures took
up space on the ground and resulted in rather long
bus transfers,

(cid:151) three positions (50, 51 and 60) had to be closed
completely to allow the rebuilding of pier B and the
storage of equipment used in the building works.

parking. The multiplication of equipment and the need
to divert around the works area each time equipment is
moved causes traffic problems in the vicinity of the
terminal. Moreover,
the airport, all
available space is fully used,
in particular in the two
temporary departure modules (D and E).

in this part of

The comprehensive restructuring plan presented by the
German authorities in support of the initial exemption
request in 1998 provided for this infrastructure to come
into operation in 2002, but was nevertheless supposed
to allow the groundhandling market to be opened up at
the beginning of 2001. The Commission Decision of 14
January 1998 forced the airport to open the market up
early, as from 1 January 2000, on the grounds in
particular of the space which should have been freed up
when piers A and C were opened, the progress of work
on pier B, and the new west apron.

(13) However,

it was possible

for pier C and
the
the central building to be
corresponding part of
thus permitting the
reopened in November 1996,
the baggage reclaim system. Three
reactivation of
by
belts were
additional
suppressing equipment parking areas on the airport
apron.

installed

luggage

here

(14) According to the

file presented by the German
authorities in support of the initial exemption request,
pier A was to be opened in spring 1998, with the full
reopening of 7 to 8 positions, thus ending the need for
some of the passengers arriving at this pier to be bussed
to pier C to reclaim their baggage and reducing the
frequency of passenger bussing. At the same time, there
would be a substantial reduction in the equipment
needed for the embarkation of passengers at pier A,
thus reducing congestion on the apron and freeing
space for the parking of new handling equipment.

(15) Work on pier B, on the other hand,

a

of

part

large

along with

is scheduled to
finish in June 2001. These are major works concerning
the airport. Pier B had to be completely
most of
demolished,
the
corresponding terminal. This pier and the central part of
the terminal will be completely rebuilt,
the terminal
being enlarged, the pier widened along its entire length,
and an extra level added in order to accommodate
Schengen and non-Schengen passenger flows. Although
the fire occurred in 1996,
the time required for
insurance assessments, project studies and demolition
works have resulted,
in a situation
which is still temporary and which causes considerable
disruption both to passenger access to gate lounges and
to the transport of groundhandling equipment across
the apron. The use of numerous gate parking positions
as remote positions obliges the airport to make a large
number of bus transfers. Additional baggage transport
equipment was also needed, which affected traffic and

three years later,

(17) According to the German authorities,

it is no longer
feasible to open up the market within the time allowed
on account of problems which have
arisen in
connection with the schedule for the various works.

2.2. Difficulties encountered during the reconstruction works

2.2.1. Pier A

(18) According to the report presented by the German
authorities, although a large part of pier A was brought
back into operation in April 1998, as provided for in
the provisional
the restructuring plan, demolition of
departure area could not begin until pier A came into
operation,
step by step, as areas became
available, work on the apron level of pier A and the
corresponding passenger bridges could be completed.

so that,

(19) Moreover,

to enable passengers to reach the airport
terminal via pier A, without having to transit through
the works
terminal C, and because the progress of
resulted in belts 9 to 12 being moved, it was necessary
to create an arrivals structure at pier A. These measures
were taken largely in response to intense lobbying from
Lufthansa and its partners, the main users of this pier,
in order to improve conditions for their passengers.

(20)

To fit out this eastern part of pier A it was necessary to
convert aircraft stand 80 into a baggage reclaim hall
and to construct a collection hall open to passengers
here. The arrivals hall was then connected to the rest of
the terminal by a passenger tunnel at gate 37 (halls
5/6).

L 39/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.2.2000

(21)

The construction of these additional structures on the
apron caused a deterioration in the traffic situation in
this area, mainly affecting baggage transport, as the
traffic generated by the reopening of
the positions
increased.

(22) According to the German authorities, this unplanned
reorganisation of pier A, at the request of the carriers,
prevented the improvement in the situation forecast by
the first Commission Decision. External circumstances
and operational requirements resulted in a reduction of
500 m2 in equipment storage areas. Moreover,
this
reduction was accompanied by the closure of aircraft
stand 80 and a reduction in the size of the adjacent
stand.

2.2.2. Pier B

(23)

(24)

The construction site plans presented in support of the
first exemption, relating to the construction of pier B
terminal, no
and the associated part of
longer correspond to the current
It was
planned to limit the works area in order to maximise
the
groundhandling
area
equipment.

the central

situation.

available

parking

for

The measures planned to overcome the constraints
relating to groundhandling services form part of the
wider-ranging (cid:145)Airport 2000 plus(cid:146) reconstruction and
enlargement plan. As the works progressed,
it proved
necessary for the airport authorities to adapt the plans
in order to meet passenger service requirements. This
resulted in the reconfiguration of pier B and the ensuing
increase in the shortage of space for storing equipment
during the rest of the works. The shortage of space at
this pier is estimated at 3 000 m2. This reorganisation
also makes it impossible to reopen the road junction
under this pier, an essential step towards improving
traffic on the apron, within the time allowed.

(25) According

to

the German authorities,

the new
exemption for the period up to 31 December 2001 is
justified by this extension of the work on pier B, which
cannot be completed before July 2001, and which
cannot therefore be truly operational until late autumn
2001.

2.2.3. Apron extension west

(26)

The (cid:145)Airport 2000 plus(cid:146) project also comprises an
extension of the apron which should allow new aircraft
positions to be developed, but should also provide space
for parking handling equipment. The main extension
consisted in the construction of an apron extension to
the west, half of which would be used to create new
the other half being used to store
aircraft positions,

handling equipment on over 14 000 m2. However,
these works were referred to in the plans presented at
as merely complementary to the other
the
time
measures
identified
overcome
intended
constraints, as, according to the file presented at the
time, these works were not due to be finished until the
end of 2000, i.e. after the period of exemption granted
by the Commission in its Decision of 14 January 1998.

the

to

(27) However, construction of

this new area has been
delayed both by technical problems relating to drainage
and by administrative
regarding the
authorisation from the Ministry responsible for water
protection. According to the file presented by the
the new
German authorities,
infrastructure cannot be brought into service until the
end of 2001 at the earliest.

these delays mean that

complications

(28)

(29)

Thus the exemption is based on the fact that the airport
cannot, in general, find additional space on account of
the adaptations made necessary both by the additional
infrastructure in pier A to improve passenger conditions
at the request of the users and by the reorganisation of
pier B.

by

the

forecasts,

restructuring

Compared with the initial
the total space
shortage for the three piers has risen by more than
3 500 m2. On the other hand, some 1 600 m2 has been
gained
the
administrative buildings, plus 2 000 m2 at the deicing
area on the western apron (cargo area) and 300 m2 on
the eastern part of
the apron. For the airport as a
whole, a net gain of just 350 m2 has been possible,
compared with the situation at
the beginning of
1998 (7), which is insufficient to permit the market to
be opened up to the extent planned.

around

apron

3. Reactions of the interested parties

(30)

Following the Commission’s publication of an extract
from the notification by the German authorities, and in
the
the Directive,
accordance with Article 9(3) of
various
invited to submit
interested parties were
comments.

felt

One carrier
the figures given in the airport’s
exemption file failed to demonstrate either the need to
alter the plan of appropriate measures or the shortage
of space.
It was astonished that the airport had not
reported a shortage of office space, and believed
additional space could be found by making use of the
vacated army huts and the area freed by the reduction
in the airport’s own equipment needs following the
arrival of a second service-provider. According to the
same user, it will not be possible to provide much space
for the new service-provider, which will therefore have

(7) Antrag auf Verl(cid:228)ngerung der Freistellung der Flughafen D(cid:252)sseldorf

GmbH, July 1999, Table 2, p. 11.

14.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 39/61

limit

to employ only a reduced amount of
specialised
equipment in certain types of aircraft, something which
will
its market opportunities. The user also
proposes that certain equipment be pooled, or that the
newcomer buy existing equipment. Lastly,
it finds the
40 % market share suggested by the NACO study at the
time of the Commission’s first Decision to be far too
optimistic, and believes a scenario based on a mere 1 %
market
is
plausible.

service-provider

second

share

the

for

(31)

(32)

4. Evaluation of the exemption in the light of the

provisions of Directive 96/67/EC

4.1. The rules in force concerning groundhandling

4.1.1. 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 are provided (selfhandling
or service suppliers) and the level of
the
airport.

traffic at

allows

The general rules governing groundhandling for the
service categories
listed in the German authorities’
notification are set out in Articles 6(2) and 7(2) of the
Directive. Those rules have been incorporated into the
the German regulations
provisions of Article 3(2) of
transposing the Directive. The Directive
a
Member State to restrict selfhandling to not less than
two users. The latter must be selected on the basis of
relevant, objective, transparent and non-discriminatory
criteria. Likewise, the number of groundhandling service
suppliers may be restricted to two, in which case the
suppliers must be chosen through a public tender
procedure. On this basis D(cid:252)sseldorf airport is required,
to Annex 5 to the Verordnung (cid:252)ber
pursuant
Bodenabfertigungsdienste
zur
auf
˜nderung weiterer luftrechtlicher Vorschriften of 10
December 1997 (8), which transposes the Directive into
German law, to open up the market for groundhandling
services to a second service supplier and to permit
selfhandling by two users for the services in respect of
which the number of service suppliers or selfhandling
users can be limited pursuant to Articles 6(2) and 7(2)
of the Directive.

Flugpl(cid:228)tzen und

(33) However, where specific space or capacity constraints,
arising in particular from the rate of utilisation of space

or space occupation, make it impossible to authorise
selfhandling or the provision of services to third parties
to the extent provided for by the Directive, the Member
State concerned may, on the basis of Article 9(1)(b) and
(d), restrict the provision of groundhandling services to
third parties to a single supplier and ban selfhandling or
restrict it to a single user.

(34) Article 9(6) of the Directive restricts the duration of the
exemptions granted and provides
that any further
exemption must be the subject of a new procedure.
Exemptions granted pursuant to Article 9(1)(d) may not
exceed three years. Those granted pursuant to Article
9(1)(b), which reserve the provision of services to a
single supplier, may not exceed two years and may be
extended by a single period of not more than two years.
This is the framework within which this exemption has
been granted by the German authorities.

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

(cid:151) specify the category or categories of groundhandling
services for which the exemption is granted and the
specific constraints of available space or capacity
which justify it,

(cid:151) be accompanied by a plan of appropriate measures

to overcome the constraints.

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

(cid:151) unduly prejudice the aims of the Directive,

(cid:151) give rise to distortions of competition,

(cid:151) extend further than necessary.

(35) As stated by the Commission, inter alia, in its Decisions
of 14 January 1998 on Frankfurt and D(cid:252)sseldorf
airports (9), the main aim of the Directive is to liberalise
groundhandling services. The restrictions imposed on
third parties are restrictions on the freedom of such
parties to supply such services. By analogy with state
measures restricting the freedom to supply services (10),
measures likely to exclude or prohibit the activities of
service suppliers or,
in the present instance, those of
users wishing to selfhandle, even if they apply without
distinction to national service suppliers or users and to
those from other Member States, must be justified by

(9) Commission Decisions of 14 January 1998 (OJ L 173, 18.6.1998,

pp. 32 and 45).

(8) Bundesgesetzblatt 1997, Part

I No 82, 16 December 1997, p.

(10) Judgments of 25 July 1991, MØdiawet [1991] ECR I-4007 and

2885.

C-76/90, S(cid:228)ger: Dennemeyer, [1991] ECR I-4221.

L 39/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.2.2000

overriding public-interest
requirements and not by
economic factors and must, moreover, be in proportion
to the aims pursued.

4.1.2. Procedure

(36)

The German authorities have undertaken to make the
entry into force of the exemption decision subject to the
Commission’s Decision.

to

put

them.

forward

overcome

taken is appropriate to those constraints, and the
Its
measures
examination drew upon the studies provided by the
German authorities, its visit to D(cid:252)sseldorf airport on 20
October 1999, and the technical assessment made at its
the Commission took
request by Aerotec. Finally,
account of the comments made by the airport and the
German Government concerning its analysis, and in
particular those concerning space constraints due to the
delay in the reorganisation of the terminal on account
of the changes which had to be made to the working
plan.

(37) As

stated in its

two Decisions on the airports at
the Commission must

Frankfurt and D(cid:252)sseldorf (11),
direct its examination towards:

(cid:151) the existence and extent of the constraints justifying
the exemption and the inability to open up the
market to the extent provided for by the Directive;
only space and/or capacity constraints may be taken
into account,

(cid:151) the plan of appropriate measures

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

4.2. Examination of the constraints referred to by the

German authorities

4.2.1. Background

structural

(41) As stated above, there is no need to go back over the
absence of
space problems at D(cid:252)sseldorf
airport and the fact that the impossibility of opening up
the market to the extent provided for in the Directive,
is a result
to which the German authorities
exclusively of the problems caused by the fire in April
1996.

refer,

(cid:151) 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.

(42)

In its Decision of 14 January 1998, the Commission
recognised that at that time there was a shortage of
space at the airport which justified the granting of an
for which
exemption in respect of
exemption was requested.

services

the

(38)

The aim of granting an exemption is not to give the
airport a further 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
in accordance with the
time allowed.
case-law of
the European
Justice of
Communities, any exception must be interpreted strictly
and the scope of any exemption must be determined on
the basis of the purpose of the measure in question.

In addition,
the Court of

(39)

This exemption must be examined in the light of these
considerations.

(40)

In accordance with Article 9(4) of the Directive, the
Commission has made a detailed analysis of the alleged
space and capacity constraints, whether the decision

that

(43) Unlike the earlier exemption, which was the subject of
the Commission Decision of 14 January 1998,
this
exemption does not cover the categories of services
listed in item 6 of the Annex to the Directive relating to
the external and internal cleaning of the aircraft and the
the airport
removal of snow and ice. The fact
authorities can now use certain old British army huts
adjacent to the airport and the creation of the deicing
area on the eastern part of the apron enables them to
comply with the conditions of the Directive by fully
liberalising the market for these services. The decision to
open these services up to competition, but not those
covered by this exemption,
is justified by the new
deicing area, the small size of the area freed up, and the
mobility of the equipment used for these services. The
old military huts
airport
boundary and the vehicles have to cross a very busy
road, which would be inconceivable for the heavy, slow
equipment used for
ramp-handling services such as
pusher tugs.

located outside

the

are

(11) See footnote 9.

(44)

The Commission’s examination of this exemption must
therefore be limited to changes in space and capacity

14.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 39/63

since its Decision of 14 January 1998 and the reasons
is
for which the German authorities claim that
impossible for D(cid:252)sseldorf airport to fully implement the
proposed plan and the conditions laid down in that
Decision.

it

(47)

The space requirements for groundhandling operations
must be examined in detail for each of the piers and
parts of the terminal affected by the works and for the
western part of the apron.

4.2.2. Implications of changes in the reconstruction of

the airport

(48)

(45) As

the works

stated above,

the problems mentioned by the
German authorities are the result of the fire of April
1996 and of
in progress which, while
forming part of a wider-ranging plan to extend the
airport, are a direct result of that fire. These works do
not
adding new
infrastructure or renovating an existing terminal, they
primarily concern the almost total reconstruction of a
building which was destroyed by fire. This brings with it
quite specific constraints, due in particular to the need:

airport by

simply

extend

the

P i e r A

the first exemption indicated that

The file presented by the German authorities in support
of
this pier was
scheduled to be brought into operation in spring 1998.
The reduction in operations on this part of the apron
was expected to free up space which could be used to
store groundhandling equipment. However,
the new
possibility for passengers to disembark at pier A made it
in response to intense lobbying from the
necessary,
companies operating at this pier, to provide a passenger
arrivals facility at this point. The Commission recognises
that this not only meets an operational requirement by
facilitating passenger access but also helps to reduce
congestion on the apron by ending bus transfers to pier
C as had been necessary since the fire.

(cid:151) to first demolish the existing buildings, which in
turn requires most of the existing infrastructure to
be evacuated, before starting to rebuild (this is true
in particular of pier B and the corresponding central
part of the terminal building),

(cid:151) to proceed in stages (pier B and the adjacent part of
the terminal building must be rebuilt before the
central part of the terminal can be demolished) and
combine demolition and building works on a single
site,

(49) However, this arrangement made it necessary to build
the arrivals structure, which in turn made it necessary
to close
stand 80).
the nearest position (aircraft
Moreover, the arrival of passengers at the new structure
at pier A means that their baggage also arrives here
rather than at pier C,
thus replacing passenger bus
traffic on the apron with baggage traffic here. During its
visit the Commission verified that full use is made of
the space available, in particular at former aircraft stand
80.

(cid:151) carry out these works in the middle of an airport

which must continue to operate.

(50)

Thus the reduction in the number of bus movements
achieved as a result of direct access to pier A has to a
large extent been offset by the arrival of baggage at the
new facility. This has been compounded by the closure
of
the
corresponding space in the adjacent area. Thus the
situation at this part of the airport has deteriorated.

stand 80 and

reduction

aircraft

in

a

(46)

requires

is clear,

entire works

The
advanced
programme
logistics, and problems arising in part of the works or
the terminal can have an impact on the
part of
programme as a whole.
following the
It
Commission’s visit in connection with this exemption
on 20 October 1999, that the entire operation of the
airport is affected by these works and that all the space
left free by the works on the apron has been used to
build temporary structures in order to provide basic
services to carriers and their passengers. In addition to
departure modules D and E, structures facilitating the
arrival of passengers and their baggage have been added,
in particular at point A, at
the request of carriers.
Baggage transfer is effected in large part by vehicles
with integral conveyor belts which nose onto the
baggage reclaim belts alongside the terminal building.
These vehicles are large and heavy, but they reduce the
congestion of roadways and unloading areas caused by
conventional trolleys.

P i e r B

(51)

Reconfiguration of the pier following the decision to
adapt the (cid:145)Airport 2000 plus(cid:146) project to the changing
needs of carriers and their passengers and in order to
facilitate passenger transfer has involved an extension of
the building site. The
the pier, and therefore of
Commission’s assessment shows that:

(cid:151) the state of the works will not allow even part of
the area currently occupied by the building site to

L 39/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.2.2000

be used to park groundhandling equipment by 1
the date on which the current
January 2000,
exemption expires, as foreseen by the Decision of
14 January 1998; the rebuilding of the pier has only
just started, and it will not be possible to open the
road junction to traffic for many months,

(57)

The plan of appropriate measures presented in support
of the first exemption also provided, in a second stage,
for the creation of a new apron to the west. Half of the
new apron, which is to be of a considerable size, will
accommodate new aircraft positions, while the other
half can be devoted to the storage of groundhandling
equipment (on more than 14 000 m2).

(cid:151) the buildings site has been kept as small as possible
while ensuring safe conditions; apart
from the
roadway used by construction plant, there is only
enough space to store a very small amount of
building equipment,

(cid:151) the aircraft are separated from the building site only
by the
road used by groundhandling
equipment, and there is no room for any additional
parking at this point.

service

It is therefore clear that it is not now feasible to free up
any extra space at pier B at least until the end of the
works, i.e. early summer 2001, before work starts on
finishing the inside of the pier in preparation for its
planned opening in autumn 2001.

Completion of construction work on pier B is to be
followed by the construction of passenger bridges on
the
the
movement and storage of equipment at this point for an
estimated period of five months.

significantly restrict

and this will

ramp,

(52)

(53)

(54)

It is therefore not possible to free up any space at pier B
beyond the 7 500 m2 which have already been made
available.

A p r o n

(55)

(56)

Extension of
the plan of
the apron formed part of
appropriate measures presented in support of the first
exemption.

The apron was initially to be extended to the east
during 1999 with the main aim of creating a deicing
area. However, the extra 4 000 m2 this has provided
cannot be allocated to the parking of groundhandling
equipment during periods when deicing is required.
Only a few hundred square metres can be used
throughout the year. As stated above, the creation of
the deicing area and the occupation of certain old
British army huts have enabled the airport authorities to
open up aircraft cleaning and deicing operations to
competition. The choice of these operations, which are
covered by item 6 of the Annex to the Directive,
is
justified by the creation of the deicing area, the small
size of
the
vehicles concerned, which have to be parked outside the
area and cross a busy road.

the area freed up, and the mobility of

While the authorisation to build this apron extension
does not in itself pose a problem, the scale of the works
requires a major modification of
the entire drainage
system on the whole of the western part of the airport.
This not only holds up the building works as such, it
authorities
also
responsible for water protection, which in turn depends
on the results of environmental tests. The time needed
to perform these tests and to assemble the required
documentation means that the authorisation is unlikely
to be obtained before spring 2000.

authorisation

from the

requires

4.3. Plan of appropriate measures

(58)

(59)

In accordance with the provisions of Article 9(2) of the
Directive, the file submitted by the German authorities
identifies a plan of appropriate measures to overcome
the constraints cited.

The construction of the new apron to the west, which
had originally been planned for the end of the year,
would provide more than 14 000 m2 for the parking of
groundhandling equipment. However,
the problems
which have arisen in connection with the need to
reorganise the drainage make the schedule for these
works on the apron uncertain.

be

and

credible

unconditional,

The plan of measures to overcome the constraints cited
must
be
accompanied by a timetable for its implementation. The
Commission
whose
implementation within the time allowed is uncertain to
constitute a plan of appropriate measures within the
meaning of Article 9 of the Directive.

consider

cannot

plan

and

a

of

the

needed

(60) However, the German authorities have presented other
measures aimed at overcoming the constraints. These
measures are linked to the completion of the work on
the terminal. The
pier B and the central part of
future
for
space
freeing-up
groundhandling equipment depends on the commitment
by the consortium overseeing the construction works to
finish those works by autumn 2001. This commitment
is firm and is subject to very substantial penalties for
late completion. Work on the building site is currently
continuing 24 hours a day, and occupies 600 persons
per day. This number is set to rise to 1 000 persons per
day in January 2000. As
is
operational, at the end of the period covered by the
exemption, the space freed up not only around pier B

the terminal

soon as

14.2.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 39/65

to

be

able

accommodate

will
groundhandling
equipment. However, the airport authorities no longer
plan to demolish the two temporary departures modules
(D and E) but to convert them into accommodation for
groundhandling equipment. The surface area and height
of these modules will allow their rapid conversion.

to

(with a reduction of just 5 % in airport equipment). If
require
selfhandle,
Lufthansa were
approximately 50 % of the equipment currently used by
the airport. The reduction in the airport’s requirements
would be of the order of 25 %, so 25 % additional space
would be required.

it would

(61)

This alternative solution, irrespective of the completion
the western apron extension and of any other
of
administrative authorisation, will allow the market to be
opened up to the extent provided for in the Directive at
the end of the period covered by the exemption and can
therefore be
a plan of
considered to constitute
appropriate measures within the meaning of Article 9(2)
of the Directive.

(64)

Thus it is not possible, given the acute space problems
at the airport, to allow a second service supplier to
operate or a user to selfhandle at the airport in respect
of the operations covered by the exemption, and the
restriction of
liberalisation to aircraft cleaning and
deicing is perfectly justified. Thus the exemption granted
by the German authorities does not extend further than
necessary in relation to these services.

(62)

(63)

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

Directive

The exemption notified by the German authorities
covers freight loading and unloading and the various
ramp-handling operations such as marshalling aircraft,
assistance to aircraft parking, moving aircraft, engine
starting, and the transport of passengers and baggage.
these operations require a large number of
Most of
pieces of equipment, some of
them slow and heavy
(such as pusher tugs), which have to be parked near the
aircraft positions and cannot, as has been suggested, be
parked near the old army huts, i.e. outside the airport’s
reserved area and on the far side of a busy road. It is
also necessary to take account of the impact which the
arrival of a second service supplier will have on the
already highly congested traffic around the piers.

of

and

schedules

concerned

of
leads

flight
operations

the Commission to officially restrict

the
Examination
groundhandling
the
Commission to estimate that the arrival of a second
service supplier would require nearly 22 % additional
space in the most realistic hypothesis of that supplier
handling some 15 % of the market. If the decision is
taken to effectively open up the market, it would not be
for
the future
service-provider’s market share, as has been suggested,
its
by imposing the limitation and specialisation of
equipment on grounds of insufficient space. All it can
do is evaluate the impact of the arrival of operators.
Moreover, as it has reiterated in its various Decisions,
the arrival of a new operator only affects the equipment
requirements of an existing operator when the incoming
operator has a market share of something between 10
and 15 %. Below that threshold, all the equipment of the
new operator must be considered additional to that of
the airport.

In the case of selfhandling by one user, 25 % additional
space would be required for LTU to cover its peak loads

in view of

the difficulties encountered in
Likewise,
carrying out
the various works and the substantial
modifications which these have entailed, the schedule of
works presented, in particular the part concerning pier
B and the central part of the terminal, is an adequate
response to the known constraints and the period of
exemption.

Thus the principles
Directive are respected.

set out

in Article 9(2) of

the

5. Conclusion

The exemption granted by the German authorities to
D(cid:252)sseldorf airport is based on the consequences of the
fire which destroyed most of the terminal in April 1996
and completely disrupted the operation of the airport.
Reconstruction, which forms part of a more ambitious
development plan, is made particularly difficult by the
need to proceed in stages, the need to demolish the
damaged buildings first, and the fact that the works are
located in the middle of an airport which must continue
to operate.

The scale and complexity of the works and the essential
link between the various stages are compounded by
technical and operational difficulties which have delayed
the full entry into service of
the various piers and
prevented the freeing-up of space for groundhandling
equipment as previously planned. The full use of the
space available, either by groundhandling equipment or
by
existing
difficulties with regard to parking and traffic on the
impossible to accommodate a new
apron make it

essential building materials,

and the

(65)

(66)

L 39/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.2.2000

operator, whether a selfhandler or a service-provider,
before the end of the period covered by the exemption,

Article 2

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Article 1

Done at Brussels, 5 January 2000.

The exemption granted on 30 September 1999 to D(cid:252)sseldorf
airport on the basis of Article 9(1)(b) and (d) of the Directive,
as notified to the Commission on 5 October 1999, is hereby
approved.

For the Commission

Loyola DE PALACIO

Vice-President