WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/01 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Consequences of the attacks of 11 September for the aviation and tourism sector.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United States, advertising, air transport, economic consequence, tax system, terrorism, tourism

C 172 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The
latest Regular Report was issued in November 2001.

According to this Report, Hungary fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria.

the Commission does not qualify isolated decisions taken by a
However, as a matter of principle,
competent Hungarian Court.
in the current case of Mr Dudás, a final decision by the
Hungarian Supreme Court is still outstanding ( following the introduction of an appeal by Mr Dudás to
the decision of the first instance Court.

In addition,

(2002/C 172 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3569/01

by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Consequences of the attacks of 11 September for the aviation and tourism sector

There is no doubt that one of the sectors most badly affected by the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington is the air transport sector.

It is also true that the crisis affecting airlines preceded that date, but growing public fear of air travel and
the increased cost of insurance have placed fresh burdens on the companies concerned.

At the time, the Commission authorised the granting of aid in a series of specific cases for a set period in
order to cover the losses incurred for the time during which aircraft were grounded. Since 11 September,
the United States has approved a series of subsidies which place European airlines in a situation of unfair
competition.

Can the Commission say what developments have taken place regarding this US aid in the months since
11 September?

Is the Commission aware of the publicity campaign ‘Get America travelling again’ and the Travel America
Now Act of 2001 adjusting the tax system in order to provide relief for the air industry?

Can the Commission say whether the Airport Security Bill has now been approved and what effects this
legislation will have for European citizens and airlines?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission has been monitoring the assistance given by the American government to the air
transport
industry. American air carriers were affected to a much greater extent by the events of
September 2001 and it was appropriate for them to receive assistance. However, the scale of the assistance
offered gave some cause for concern in case it placed American air carriers in a stronger position than
their European counterparts. In November 2001, the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for
Transports and Energy wrote to her counterpart, Mr Mineta, the Secretary of Transportation, to express
this concern.

Subsequently the Commission has proposed to the United States greater transatlantic cooperation and
information exchange on the granting and monitoring of State aid. However, the United States are
cautious about formal cooperation and the Union is limited in its approach by the refusal of the Council to
agree a mandate for full Community-level negotiations with the United States in the air transport field.
Contacts will therefore continue on an ad-hoc basis.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/91

The Commission has noted the existence of a publicity campaign to encourage tourism to the United
States, which has been funded by contributions from American industry. On a legislative level, the
Commission understands that various proposals were made last year to adjust the tax system in order to
encourage American citizens to travel, but that none were passed into law by the end of the last
Congressional session.

As one of the implementing provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which was signed
on 19 November 2001, the United States’ Customs Service has issued on 31 December 2001 an Interim
Rule requiring that each air carrier, foreign and domestic, operating a passenger flight in foreign air
transportation to the United States shall transmit to the United States’ customs prior to arrival a passenger
and crew manifest. These measures need to be implemented in conformity with the requirements of
Directive 95/46/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of
individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (1).

(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995.

(2002/C 172 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3573/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Political prisoners in Uzbekistan

Towards the end of November, a European delegation under the leadership of
the Commission’s
Directorate-General for External Relations and of the head of the Unit for Relations with the Caucasus and
Central Asia, Mr Cornelis Wittebrood, visited Uzbekistan. The delegation discussed not only economic but
also social and political relations between the Union and Uzbekistan, and it was agreed that relations in
these fields should be improved.

On 28 November 2001, the Uzbek democratic opposition leader Muhammed Salih (ERK) was detained at
Prague airport on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by the Uzbek authorities. A few days
previously Salih, who was recognised as a political refugee in Norway, had been my guest at the European
Parliament. The Government of Uzbekistan accuses Salih of responsibility for bombings directed against
the Uzbek authorities. No proof of his involvement has ever been provided. Salih managed to escape, but
according to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch there are still between 7 000 and 8 000
political prisoners in his country. AI and HRW have been denouncing this situation. As Tashkent is seen as
an ally in the battle against terrorism, however, the regime has a free hand in Uzbekistan.

1.
Is the Commission aware that there are thousands of political prisoners in Uzbekistan? Did the
European delegation raise this problem during its visit to the country? If so, what response did it receive
from the Uzbek authorities? If not, why not?

2.
Has the Commission obtained any information from the Czech Republic ( a candidate for
accession ( as to the circumstances in which Mr Muhammed Salih was detained? If not, does it intend to
do so?

3.
Has the Commission contacted the Uzbek authorities in connection with the arrest of democratic
opposition leader Salih? If so, what was Tashkent’s response? If not, does the Commission intend to do so?

Does the Commission intend to continue to support and promote trade relations between Uzbekistan

4.
and the EU if Uzbekistan does not change its attitude towards the democratic political opposition?

5. Will the Commission inform potential European investors about the human rights situation in
Uzbekistan? If not, why not?