WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Collusion by airlines to curtail passengers' rights.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, consumer protection, liability, transport company, transport regulations, transport user

C 40 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) makes it clear that no deduction, retention or
further specific charge can be made that would reduce contributions from the Funds, which must be paid
in full. That principle does not mean, however, that payments made by the Community cannot be included
in the tax base, since the tax is payable on the taxpayers(cid:146) income as a whole and not specifically or mainly
on the Community assistance.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 40 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2105/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Collusion by airlines to curtail passengers(cid:146) rights

The Warsaw Convention (Articles 19 and 22) and, more recently, the Montreal Convention (Article 22(3)),
extend guarantees to passengers whose baggage is temporarily mislaid.

These guarantees, however, are not mentioned in Annex 1 to the communication to the European
Parliament and the Council (cid:145)Protection of air passengers in the European Union(cid:146) (1).

In the agreement concluded on 10 May 2001 in Lisbon by the Association of European Airlines, the
airlines concerned nonetheless undertake to provide sufficient assistance to meet the passenger(cid:146)s reasonable
short-term needs where baggage is temporarily mislaid.

On 18 June 2001, the baggage of the author of this question failed to arrive in Brussels on a TAP flight
from Ponta Delgada. The flight arrived at 11.30 a.m, and he was obliged to spend almost an hour at
Sabena(cid:146)s baggage claims desk. As he had to fly from Brussels to Vienna at 2 p.m. on 19 June, he asked
Sabena whether he could claim a contribution to the purchase of a new suitcase should his baggage not
arrive during the course of the day.

He was told by a Sabena employee that the company declined all responsibility and that it would take no
action until the baggage had officially been missing 24 hours.

This position on the part of a Sabena employee is in total contradiction with the responsibilities assumed
by both TAP and Sabena under the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions, and is also in breach of the
agreement signed by the European airlines one month previously.

Unfortunately, the author of this question has to report that attitudes of this type are all too frequent on
the part of the airlines.

What proposals does the Commission have for monitoring the implementation of agreements and
conventions, whether binding or voluntary, on the part of airlines?

(1) COM(2000) 365, 21 June 2000.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 September 2001)

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, neither the Warsaw Convention or the Montreal Convention covers the
temporary loss of baggage; they deal only with the liability of air carriers in the event of loss or material
damage. This is why the Commission,
in its communication on (cid:145)Protection of air passengers in the
European Union(cid:146) referred to by the Honourable Member, considers that steps should be taken to help
passengers who are suffering from delays in the delivery of their baggage.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/187

The airline companies decided to include measures to this effect in the voluntary agreements which they
published in Lisbon on 10 May 2001. They undertook to apply these measures as from 14 February 2002,
since it would take some time to modify their procedures and train their staff.

Work is currently being carried out with the airline companies, the airports and the member States of the
European Civil Aviation Conference, to put in place ways and means of monitoring the implementation of
these voluntary agreements.

As regards monitoring the implementation of international conventions, the Community only has any
responsibility if it is itself a party to them, which is not the case with the Warsaw Convention. It has, on
the other hand, signed the Montreal Convention, and is in the process of both ratifying it (1) and
transposing it into internal law (2). Both proposals have been placed before Parliament and it has expressed
an opinion on them.

(1) COM(2000) 446 final.
(2) COM(2000) 340 final.

(2002/C 40 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Clearance of accounts and adulteration of milk powder

The Commission has committed itself to recovering Community funds in the wake of fraud over aids paid
in respect of skimmed-milk powder intended for use in feedingstuffs. Meanwhile, when asked a question
on whether it has fulfilled this commitment, the Commission failed to reply, either under the discharge
procedure or when the question was subsequently re-asked (Written Question E-1001/01 (1)).

In the light of the above, the author of this question repeats the question he earlier asked under point
2.7(a) of the second discharge questionnaire:

1. Has the Commission taken action or not to recover the funds it had agreed to recover in relation to

the adulteration of milk in the Netherlands?

2.

If action has been taken, can the Commission supply copies of the documents relating to the accounts
clearance procedure under which this recovery of funds took place?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(2002/C 40 E/204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2107/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Adulteration in the dairy industry

In paragraph 42 of its replies to the Court of Auditors(cid:146) Special Report No 1/1999, the Commission states
that the recovery of funds (cid:145)will be verified in the clearance of accounts procedure(cid:146).

In the discharge procedure, the Committee on Budgetary Control, in point 2(7) of its questionnaire No 2,
asked the Commission to confirm that it had proceeded to recover the sums concerned from the
Netherlands authorities.

Instead of replying to the question, the Commission chose to comment on a different procedure, relating
to Belgium.