WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/02 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Algeria's refusal to issue visas to an EU technical committee.
Date: 2002-04-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Algeria, Commission Delegation, EU relations, association agreement (EU), human rights, technical committee (EU)

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/55

The vast majority of the respondents held the view that the IATA passenger tariff conferences secure an
important benefit in the form of multilateral interlining and that this benefit was unlikely to be replicated
by any alternative, less restrictive system. While most respondents acknowledged that withdrawing the
block exemption for the passenger tariff conferences would not mean the end of interlining altogether,
many felt that without the tariff conferences, consumers would have a smaller choice of flexible fares and
smaller airlines might have fewer interlining opportunities and as a result find it harder to compete.
However, some respondents argued that, as alliances develop, at least in the longer-term alliance or
bilateral products might offer similar benefits to the benefits of IATA interlining.

In view of these responses the Commission proposes to extend the block exemption for passenger tariff
conferences for three years, until 30 June 2005, under the further obligation that air carriers participating
in conferences collect certain data on the relative use of the passenger tariffs set in the conferences and
their relative importance for actual interlining. This Commission proposal was published on 13 April 2002
in the Official Journal (1) and third parties are invited to submit their comments within one month.

(1) OJ C 89, 13.4.2002.

(2002/C 309 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0881/02

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(2 April 2002)

Subject: Algeria’s refusal to issue visas to an EU technical committee

Algeria has signed Articles of Association with the European Union, Article 2 of which states that: ‘the
respect of democratic principles and respect for basic human rights constitute an essential part of this
Accord’. Only weeks after signing this, the Algerian State has refused to issue visas to a technical
committee of the EU (under the EIDHR programme) to oversee civil society representation in Algeria.

What is the Council’s opinion on the fact that this has happened?

Does it intend to rescind the EU Association Agreement unless visas are granted to EU officials to oversee
the fulfilment of this Agreement?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

It was brought to the Council’s attention that a mission of experts to Algeria, with the participation of
Commission officials, was scheduled for February in the framework of
the European Initiative for
Democracy and Human Rights. However, the Embassy of Algeria in Belgium did not issue the visas
requested by the Commission officials, as the Mission of Algeria to the European Communities wanted
more time to prepare them.

Although originally scheduled for February, a mission of experts to Algeria in the framework of the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights took place, with the participation of Commission
officials, at the end of April. It confirmed the willingness of the Algerian authorities to cooperate with the
EU in the field of human rights.

C 309 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreement with Algeria was signed on 22 April 2002 in the presence
of the President of the Council, Mr Aznar, and of the Algerian President, Mr Bouteflika. The Agreement
will enter into force after receiving the assent of the European Parliament and being ratified by the
parliaments of
to examine Algeria’s application of
It will enable the Council
international human rights standards in the bodies set up under the Agreement, namely the Association
Council and the Association Committee.

the Member States.

(2002/C 309 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0893/02

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 March 2002)

Subject: ADP-SAB Partnership Agreement

In March 1999 a partnership agreement was signed between ADP (Aéroports de Paris) and the SAB
company, which runs the Liège-Bierset airport. It appears from some of the clauses of this agreement that
the Liège site could receive flights initially destined for Paris in the event of the Paris airports reaching
saturation point.

Under the proposal for a directive (1) on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the
introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports, as amendment by Parliament,
Roissy Airport could be included in the list of city airports (Annex 1), while Liège-Bierset would not, and
therefore more severe restrictions on the use of aircraft fitted with hushkits could be adopted at Roissy. It
is logical to expect that these hushkit aircraft would be diverted to Liège, resulting in an increase in the
noise problem for people living near this airport.

Does the Commission not think that this is an institutionalised form of environmental dumping that
would transfer a noise problem from one place to another?

Does this partnership agreement comply with the requirements of Community policy on the environment,
and in particular Articles 174 and 175 of the Treaty?

(1) COM(2001) 695 final.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

The question refers to a partnership agreement, signed in March 1999, between ADP (Aéroports de Paris)
and SAB, which runs the Liège-Bierset airport.

it does not appear to
The Commission has no knowledge of the details of this agreement; however,
contain any reference to the noise characteristics of aircraft. It is clear that any aircraft diverted from
Roissy airport (or from any other airport) would in any event have to meet the same noise standards as
apply to all other aircraft arriving at Liège-Bierset.

Contrary to what the Honourable Member states in the second paragraph of his question regarding the
proposal for a directive, Roissy airport is not included in the list of city airports.

In any case, an airport does not have to figure on the list of city airports in order for a ban to be
introduced on hushkitted aircraft that are on the borderline between the two noise standards. Under the
criteria laid down in the directive, other airports may also ban flights by such aircraft, i.e. those which fail
to meet the certification limits, with a margin of five decibels, defined in Volume I, Part II, Chapter 3 of
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.

The Commission considers that this directive will give each Member State the necessary tools to deal with
excessive growth in aircraft noise around airports.

For these reasons, the Commission considers that there is no risk of institutionalising environmental
dumping and that the issue of compliance with Articles 174 and 175 of the EC Treaty does not arise.