WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Slot allocations and regional air services.
Date: 2000-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, civil aviation, common transport policy, competence of the Member States, peripheral region, services of general interest

C 89 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

real value, that constitutes discrimination within the meaning of Article 90 (formerly Article 95) of the EC
Treaty. In practice, the extra tax to which this ruling relates generally applies to second-hand cars, while
new vehicles are usually taxed according to their real value.

The Court(cid:146)s judgments make it clear that the rulings in question apply to taxes levied on the value of the
vehicle (1). The charge imposed on vehicles in Sweden, on the other hand (cid:129) to which the Honourable
Member implicitly refers (cid:129) is not a tax on value but a flat-rate fee of SEK 700 (€ 84,43), irrespective of the
value of the vehicle, which is intended to cover in advance the cost of scrapping the vehicle (when its
useful life is over and it is ultimately taken off the market). All Swedish-registered vehicles are subject to
this (cid:145)scrapping fee(cid:146) when they are first put on the road there, whether they are new or second-hand. The
fee is linked to that Member State(cid:146)s environmental policy, which is intended to ensure that vehicles are not
dumped off-road when their useful life is over but scrapped in accordance with environmental regulations
by approved operators. For this purpose, the Swedish administration offers a form of partial refund of the
fee (SEK 500) if the vehicle is scrapped by an approved operator.

In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the relevant fee charged by the Swedish adminis-
tration when a vehicle is first put on the road in Sweden is not incompatible with Community law.

Apart from that tax and VAT, the Commission is not aware of any other taxes applied to the sale or first
registration of vehicles in Sweden.

(1)

In particular the Court(cid:146)s judgments of 11 December 1990 in Case C-47/88 Commission v. Denmark, [1990] ECR I-
4509; 9 March 1995 in Case C-345/93 Fazenda Pœblica and MinistØrio Pœblico v. AmØrico Joªo Nunes Tadeu,
[1993] ECR I-479 and 23 October 1997 in Case C-375/95 Commission v. Greece, [1997] ECR I-5981.

(2001/C 89 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1711/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Slot allocations and regional air services

Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (1) authorises Member States to allocate a regional air route between its
more remote regions and main city airports. However, at present
this is only an option and not
compulsory.

British Airways has recently withdrawn its regional service between Plymouth and Heathrow, leading to
concerns in Plymouth that inward investment will be put at risk (or even lost) because of the lack of an air
link to the capital.

Will the Commission indicate if it has any plans to introduce legislation to compel Member States to
provide a regional air service to their regions which are at a great distance from the capital?

Can the Commission also indicate its current plans concerning the present slot allocation regulations and
say whether there are likely to be any changes in this area?

(1) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2000)

The current slot regulation (1) gives the possibility to Member States to ensure that air carriers operating
domestic scheduled air services have physical access to congested airports by giving Member States the
right to reserve slots at such airports for routes serving a peripheral or development region in their

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/75

territory, any such route being considered to be vital for the economic development of the region or for
routes where public service obligations have been imposed. Such obligations may be imposed by a
Member State according to the provisions of the regulation on market access (2), where for particular
regions it is economically vital to ensure that sufficient scheduled air services are provided where otherwise
none or unsatisfactory air services would be operated. In both cases it is the competence of Member States
to examine the need for such services and reserve the appropriate slots.

The United Kingdom has imposed public service obligations on routes serving the Scottish Highlands and
Islands. The service between Plymouth and London Heathrow is a commercial service with no particular
conditions attached to it.

The Commission, while preparing its proposal on the revision of the slot regulation announced in its work
programme for 2000, will take account of all the aspects affected by the issue of slot allocation.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18.1.1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community

airports (OJ L 14, 22.1.1993).

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23.7.1992 on access to Community air carriers to intra-Community

routes (OJ L 240, 24.8.1992).

(2001/C 89 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1716/00

by Olivier Dupuis (TDI) to the Commission

(29 May 2000)

Subject: Bribes and Union policy on distortion of competition rules and the fight against corruption

In its reply of 8 November 1999 to written question P-1844/99 (1), with reference to its communication of
21 May 1997 on Community anti-corruption policy, the Commission stated that it intended to raise (cid:145)the
question of tax deductibility for bribes with the Member States in the appropriate fora, with a view to
reaching consensus to abolish such provisions in the framework of a joint concerted move(cid:146).

In its reply in April (joint reply to oral question No 59, H-0257/00 (2), and question E-2012/99) (3), the
Commission stated that it was in possession of information showing that those Member States that still
allowed firms to deduct from their profits commissions paid to foreign public officials had either already
amended their legislation or were about to do so in order to reflect the principles set out in the OECD
recommendation of April 1996 and the Commission communication of 21 May 1997.

Will the Commission provide specific details of the Member States concerned and the exact dates on which
the legislation of each was changed or is due to be changed?

The Commission also states that it has no immediate plans to propose harmonisation of the conditions
governing deductibility of commissions paid to private firms or persons. Quite apart from the obvious
distortion of competition rules the payment of such commissions represents, is the Commission aware of
the fact that a significant proportion of the monies supposedly paid to private persons or firms in order to
gain a foothold in the markets of third countries actually ends up with intermediaries and the managers of
firms in the Member State of origin?

In view of this, does the Commission agree that it has a duty to take, as a matter of urgency, all measures
necessary to ensure that the practice of deducting from profits commissions paid to persons and firms,
both public and private, is brought to an end as soon as possible?

(1) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 32.
(2) Debates of the European Parliament (April 2000).
(3) OJ C 219 E, 1.8.2000, p. 67.