WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions.
Date: 2000-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, air transport, exclusive distribution agreement, infringement of EU law, insurance company, restriction on competition, transport authorisation, transport of patients

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/183

(2000/C 280 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0137/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Rescue flight contracts with the main association of Austrian social insurance institutions

Current practice in Austria with regard to rescue flights is giving cause for considerable concern regarding
its conformity with EU legislation. Although authorisation from the civil aviation authorities is needed to
carry out secondary flights, that is to say transport flights between hospitals, it emerges that companies
operating such flights, which have now been transferred away from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior,
do not hold such authorisation. In addition, the main association of Austrian social security institutions
has simply concluded an indefinite contract with the Federal Ministry of the Interior and another private
body under which they alone can benefit from direct settlement of flight costs through social insurance.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the above?

Does the Commission take the view that

2.
insurance
institutions is required to issue a Europe-wide invitation to tender for such contracts under the relevant
European legislation, in particular Directives 92/50/EEC (1) and 89/665/EEC (2).

the main association of Austrian social

3.

4.

If so what steps will the Commission now take in response to this infringement of EU legislation?

If not, what is the Commission(cid:146)s justification for this view?

Does the Commission consider that the exempting of firms with government links from civil aviation

5.
authorisation requirements constitutes an inadmissible distortion of competition?

6.

7.

If so, what steps will the Commission take?

If not, what is the Commission(cid:146)s justification for this view?

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

The Commission has received several complaints addressing similar facts. These complaints concern the
issue of transport of sick people by road. The Commission is investigating the procurement practice and
will have to determine if the procurement rules have been infringed.

When it comes to the legal assessment of the case the Commission is bound by the conclusions of the
Court of justice in the case T(cid:246)gel (1). In its ruling of 24 September 1998, the Court stated that the rescue
and patient transport accompanied by a paramedic falls under Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (Annex 1A,
category 2, and Annex 1B, category 25). When the threshold fixed in the Directive is reached, the rescue
and patient transport accompanied by a paramedic has therefore to be published on European level. The
Court however did not pronounce on the question which Austrian authority is under the obligation to
publish.

The Commission will investigate the facts described by the Honourable Member. It will have to determine
at a given moment if contracts concluded between the (cid:145)Federation of Austrian Social Insurance Entities(cid:146)
(Hauptverband der (cid:214)sterreichischen Sozialversicherungstr(cid:228)ger) and the ministry of Interior for the opera-
tion of air transport for the sick and injured needs to be published.

(1) Case C-76/97 of 24.9.1998, Walter T(cid:246)gel against Nieder(cid:246)sterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse, preliminary ruling.