WRITTEN QUESTION E-2803/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Injury done to the environment and to public services by the Member States' temporarily taking over airline insurance risks.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, air transport, control of State aid, economic consequence, environmental impact, insurance, terrorism, transport capacity

C 134 E/108

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The Commission stated in its recently published White Paper on Transport Policy (1) that
the
4.
transport system as a whole should be sustainable from an economic, social and environmental point of
view. Air transport poses some specific environmental problems and these should be addressed at
European and international level, however absolute capacity limitations on airlines may not be appropriate.
The objective should be to give airlines freedom to operate efficiently within a broader framework of
general rules designed to promote higher environmental standards.

5.
Taxation of aviation fuel and other market based measures with similar effect must be examined
through the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) since the current exemption for kerosene is
level. These policies have been incorporated into some
long-established policy, agreed at international
3 000 bilateral air services agreements. In the shorter term the Commission is looking at how emission
related levies or voluntary mechanisms might be used to reduce the environmental impact of aviation. For
the longer term, it is studying how it could be part of an emissions trading programme under the Kyoto
protocol.

6.
Community legislation provides for capacity to be handled through competitive forces in the air
transport market. Returning to a policy of regulating passenger shares between airlines by government
intervention would remove incentives for airlines to improve their services or to compete with one
another on price. This would not be in the interest of European consumers or the European economy.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2002/C 134 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2803/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Injury done to the environment and to public services by the Member States’ temporarily taking

over airline insurance risks

1.
Can the Council confirm that the decision by the Member States’ finance ministers of 22 September
2001 in Liège to take over non-insurable risks of airline companies with no requirement to make premium
payments is provisional and in principle will not remain in force for more than four weeks?

2.
Does the Council agree that such insurance covers more than a merely ‘theoretical risk’, since in the
event of accidents which Heaven forbid will never occur, very real huge large amounts would have to be
paid out?

Given the measure referred to in paragraph 1, what are the Council’s plans to prevent tax revenue
3.
from the Member States being withdrawn from the objectives to which they were assigned in the national
budgets, so that funds for inter alia education, the environment, old-age provision and health care do not
end up in renewed support for airlines?

4.
How does the Council plan to ensure that the above-mentioned measure does not produce a delay in
the elimination of the over-capacity prior to 11 September 2001, which is responsible for the many empty
seats on aircraft, and which would mean that the environment continues to be affected by unnecessarily
high noise and emission levels?

Has the Council considered measures which,

5.
that airline restrictions following
11 September 2001 are extended beyond four weeks, could replace the recently announced support
measures and would not lead to damage to the environment or be detrimental to public services in the
Member States?

in the event

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/109

Reply

(14 February 2002)

The Informal meeting of finance ministers in Liège on 21 September 2001 issued guidelines for any
insurance cover that governments might choose to provide to airlines as a result of the short-term failure
in the commercial
to the atrocities of 11 September. The developing
situation in respect of such insurance cover was again discussed by the Ecofin Council on 16 October
2001, while the Transport/Telecommunications Council on the same day discussed the general situation in
the airline sector and adopted Council Conclusions on the issue.

insurance market subsequent

The Council confirmed that the provision of insurance cover by Governments must remain a short-term
intervention in reaction to a specific failure in the commercial market, and that an absolute limit of the
end of December 2001 should be set for the end of such intervention. The Council also agreed that steps
should be taken to encourage a return to normal operation of the commercial market. These steps should
include the charging of market-related premium substitutes by Governments, reflecting the risks insured,
and monthly review of all Government measures.

it will be for the Member States to decide on the measures to be taken in
Within these guidelines,
accordance with their national procedures, while respecting the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact
with regard to their budgetary impact.

The Council noted that if the abnormal situation in the airline insurance sector recurs after the expiry of
the year-end deadline for the end of Government intervention, the Commission should make proposals to
cover by alternative means risks for which commercial cover is not available.

With respect to the general economic situation in the air transport sector, after a broad debate at the
Transport/Telecommunications Council on 16 October 2001, and noting that control of state aid is a
matter for the Commission,
the Commission’s Communication on the
took note of
repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry.

the Council

Moreover, the Council has also taken note of the resolution on environmental questions adopted by the
ICAO Assembly, and of the intention of the Commission to present in the near future a proposal for a
replacement for the ‘hushkits’ Regulation. The Council has undertaken to give this proposal the necessary
priority to facilitate its adoption before April 2002.

(2002/C 134 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2804/01

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in terms of equal opportunities in Competition COM/C/01

Is the Commission aware that, contrary to normal practice until now, Competition COM/C/1/01 (1) makes
no provision for a derogation to the age limit in respect of women who have stopped working for a
number of years following the birth of one or more children?

Does the Commission not consider that this is an obvious case of discrimination against working women,
clearly infringing Community law and at odds with the policy of respect for equal opportunities which all
the Community institutions have been promoting in recent years?

Does the Commission agree that it should intervene rapidly to remedy this discrimination problem, taking
account of the fact that the deadline for applications to take part in the competition is 19 October 2001
and that, in the absence of prompt action to clarify the situation, many women who would be interested
in taking part in the competition might be discouraged from doing so, thinking that they do not meet the
age requirements, as set out in the notice of competition?

(1) OJ C 251, 11.9.2001, p. 12.