WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/01 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Airline competition and government subsidies.
Date: 2001-10-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United States, air transport, economic consequence, financial aid, restriction on competition, terrorism

C 115 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

There is no obligation for Member States to report a revocation of a fraudulently obtained citizenship to
other Member States or EU-bodies. However, according to Article 23 of the Schengen Implementation
agreement Member States applying the Schengen Agreements have to return third-country nationals from
their territory, who are illegally resident.

Citizenship law is a subject of national competence. The Commission or other Union bodies are, therefore,
not in the position to take measures relating to questions, which are under national
legislation and
jurisdiction.

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

(2002/C 115 E/209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2951/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Gibraltar’s exclusion from the proposals for a European Single Sky

Could the Commission say what possible basis there is for excluding Gibraltar from the current proposals
for a European Single Sky, and whether it believes that there is a legal basis on which such discrimination
could be challenged in the Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission adopted proposals on the realisation of a Single European Sky, referring to the reform of
air traffic management, on 10 October 2001 (1). As the Honourable Member will have noted,
the
Explanatory Memorandum of that proposal
indicated that ‘The Commission takes note of the recent
understanding reached between the United Kingdom and Spanish authorities on Gibraltar airport which
will be addressed in the Council through a specific provision on the scope of the measures for the creation
of the single European sky.’

(1) COM(2001) 123 final and 564 final.

(2002/C 115 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2952/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Airline competition and government subsidies

(25 October 2001)

What steps has the Commission taken to ensure that the understandable decision by EU governments to
offer financial support to their airlines in the light of the terrible events of September 11 does not take the
form of illegal subsidies designed to advantage one Member State’s airline over another or to prevent the
need for restructuring on the part of certain airlines which was necessary long before the terrorist attacks?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Commission adopted a Communication (1) to Parliament and Council on 10 October 2001, outlining
its position with regards to the economic consequences of the terrorist attacks in the United States and to
the crisis the air transport industry is currently facing.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/199

Concerning State aids, this communication explains inter alia on which legal basis and to which extent the
Commission would favourably envisage measures by Member States granting airlines
financial
compensation for the losses incurred directly related to the terrorist attacks and to the closure of the
American airspace on a non discriminatory basis.

These measures will
procedures applicable in the area of State aid in the air transport sector.

in any case be examined by the Commission according to the usual rules and

It should also be stressed that the compatibility of aids granted to companies in financial difficulties is a
different issue from that of compensation for damages directly related to the events of 11 September
2001.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final: The repercussions of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry.

(2002/C 115 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2957/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Water supply and drainage project in Khalkida

(25 October 2001)

According to information which has come into my possession, the Khalkida public body for water supply
and drainage made an application to the national authorities for funding from the Cohesion Fund for the
project entitled ‘Khalkida: water supply and drainage’. This application satisfies all the requirements of the
relevant regulations, as was confirmed in checks carried out by the authorities in the Central Greece
region. In spite of this, the directorate responsible in the Ministry of Economic Affairs did not back the
application for assistance.

Could the Commission:

1.

2.

say whether it is aware of this issue?

take steps to ensure that this project is funded, in view of Greece’s delays in submitting proposals for
the Cohesion Fund?

(2002/C 115 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Cohesion Fund and the Chalkis municipal water supply and sewerage company

The Chalkis municipal water supply and sewerage company in Greece submitted a proposal for funding
from the Cohesion Fund in due compliance with the provisions of the relevant Commission directive, as
verified by the authorities in the region of Sterea Ellada. Inexplicably, however, the application was not
endorsed by the directorate responsible within the Greek Ministry for Economic Affairs. The company had
also suffered the same treatment during the previous round of Cohesion Fund applications, as revealed by
the final accounts of the Fund.

The inhabitants of the capital of this large Greek island are rightly wondering why they are the victims of
this violation of the principle that all Greek citizens should be treated equally. The author of this question
would also like to know whether this complaint is in fact justified and whether the Commission is
prepared to investigate the matter and intercede with the Greek authorities to ensure that Community
funding is allocated on the basis of fair and transparent criteria and in a manner which does not give the
impression that the Union does not treat all Greek citizens on an eqaul footing and that it tolerates such
conduct?