WRITTEN QUESTION P-2003/00 by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council. Sanctions imposed on Austria.
Date: 2000-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, extreme right, international sanctions, intra-EU relations

C 103 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

developed on a voluntary basis and via co-operation between the parties involved. The Directive on
electronic commerce establishes liability standards for Internet intermediaries on which the development of
notice and take down-procedures can be based.

The Parliament supported this approach when it adopted the Directive on electronic commerce on 4 May
2000 without any amendments. In its legislative resolution the Parliament urged the Commission to
encourage the establishment of efficient notice and take down procedures.

The Commission will actively encourage and support such developments and participate in the dialogue
with all interested parties. Such procedures are likely to evolve quickly reflecting the technological progress
and market developments. Industry and users are the best parties to determine the requirements for the
effective functioning of such procedures and to agree upon the setting up of them.

(1) COM(2000) 202 final.
(2) Not yet formally adopted; on the Commission(cid:146)s proposal and Amended proposal for a Directive of the Parliament
and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the Information
Society cf. COM(97) 628 final (OJ C 108, 7.4.1998) and COM(1999) 250 final (OJ C 180, 25.6.1999).

(3) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.
(4) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998.
(5) OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(2001/C 103 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2003/00

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Sanctions imposed on Austria

On 15 March 2000, the President-in-office of the Council, Mr Francesco Seixas da Costa indicated to the
European Parliament, during deliberations on reports concerning human rights in the EU, that he was
unable to deny that to date Austria had complied with all obligations arising from its EU membership. He
went on to say that, since everyone was personally affected,
if EU Member States did not confine
themselves to bilateral measures in response to the government formation in Austria, this could not be
regarded as interference in internal affairs.

At a Dutch Socialist congress held on 25 May 2000, the Portuguese President-in-office, Mr Guterres,
indicated that he was (cid:145)proud(cid:146), of the sanctions which could be raised only with the unanimous agreement
of the remaining 14 Member States.

In interview to the Italian newspaper (cid:145)La Republicca(cid:146) on 24 May 2000, Romano Prodi, President of the
Commission, declared that human rights violations would not be tolerated, while pointing out that, to
date, Austria had not committed any infringements.

In the light of the utterances of its Portuguese President-in-office, how can the Council support its

1.
assertion that the sanctions being imposed on Austria are of a bilateral nature rather than EU measures?

Does the Council consider the statement by Council President-in-office Mr Guterres that he is (cid:145)proud(cid:146)
2.
of the sanctions as an infringement of the EU Treaties, in particular the principle of solidarity embodied in
Article 1 of the EU Treaty and the principle of loyalty to the Community embodied in Article 10 of the
EC Treaty?

3.
As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission is responsible for monitoring all Member States and has,
by its own account, been closely scrutinising developments in Austria since the entry of the FP(cid:214) into
government. How can the Council justify maintaining sanctions against Austria in view of the Commis-
sion(cid:146)s conclusion that Austria has (cid:145)to date committed no infringements(cid:146), a view also expressed by Mr Seixas
da Costa in mid-March?

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/45

Reply

(10 November 2000)

The measures to which the Honourable Member refers were set out in a declaration made by the
Portuguese Prime Minister on behalf of the governments of fourteen Member States. That declaration is
not binding on the Council.

The Council has not taken a view on this matter, and is therefore not in a position to reply to any of the
questions raised by the Honourable Member.

(2001/C 103 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2007/00

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 June 2000)

Subject: Impact of the air traffic generated by Milan Malpensa Airport, Italy

to the requirement

Since October 1998, there has been a considerable increase in air traffic using the Milan Malpensa airport
due to the transfer of a certain amount of air traffic from other airports (Milan Linate in particular) (1) and
the addition of further traffic generated by the allocation of completely new flights made possible by the
upgrading of the airport. Malpensa airport is currently authorised to handle an annual maximum of
12 million passengers (2). The TRN (trans-European network) Malpensa enlargement project of 1993,
which transformed the airport from a (cid:145)point to point(cid:146) to a (cid:145)hub(cid:146) and provided for traffic to be increased to
up to 24 million passengers per year and 1,25 million tonnes of goods per year, obviously constitutes a
substantial modification of
for a
the original 1987 project and so is subject
environmental impact assessment under the terms of Directive 85/337/EEC (3). The plan put forward on
25 October 1998 for the transfer of all traffic from Linate to Malpensa airport was vetoed at the time by
the Commission. Linate now retains one-third of the traffic (5.5 million passengers per year) whilst the
in addition to the existing 6 to 7 million
remaining two-thirds (11 million passengers per year),
passengers, have increased Malpensa(cid:146)s traffic to 17 to 18 million passengers per year. This is a flagrant
breach of the applicable legislation, which explicitly calls for an environmental impact assessment to be
carried out in the case of projects to enlarge existing facilities; the procedure in question, which was
belatedly begun in July 1998, has not yet been completed. The Italian government has sought to deny the
evidence of these statistics in its dealings with the Commission, whilst actually making provision for the
remaining traffic to be transferred from Linate to Malpensa from 25 October 1999 (4). This measure has
been deferred since, meanwhile, the Commune of Milan successfully requested that the traffic using Linate
be maintained whilst the Ministry of the Environment (5) took a negative view of the environmental impact
study submitted by SEA (6)
flights. The latest
developments include the decision of 13 December 1999 by the Prime Minister, Mr d(cid:146)Alema, which did
not take into due account the Ministry of Environment decree, the subsequent blocking of that measure by
the Commission, and finally the order issued by the Ministry of Transport for the partial transfer of
flights (7), against which the airlines are appealing, mainly on the grounds that it infringes the competition
rules.

increase in the number of

in support of

the latest

Does the Commission not agree that, as there has been an obvious infringement of Directive 85/377/EEC,
any provision which involves an increase in air traffic in terms of passengers and goods to above the levels
currently authorised (12 million passengers per year and 300 000 tonnes of goods per year) should be
halted until all the requirements laid down for the environmental impact assessment procedure have been
duly and fully met?

(1) Cf. Ministry of Transport decree DM 05/07/96 No 46-T and DM 23/10/97 No 57-T.
(2) Cf. Ministry of Transport decree No 903/1987.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(4) Cf. Ministry of Transport decree DM 09/10/98 No 101-T.
(5) Cf. Ministry of Environment decree DM 25/11/99.
(6) The company managing the airport.
(7) Cf. Ministry of Transport decree of March 2000.