WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/02 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Air traffic noise.
Date: 2002-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, International Civil Aviation Organisation, air traffic, airport, international agreement, noise level, noise protection

C 277 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

It has recently been reported that the Slovak Prime Minister, Mr Mikuláš Dzurinda, has told the Slovak
people that preparation for accession to the European Union requires not only the establishment of
territorial units (NUTS) for the purposes of allocation and distribution of structural funds as required by
the acquis but also the setting-up of regional governments. Can the Commission confirm whether or not
these reports are correct, and, if so, whether the Commission has in any way suggested to Mr Dzurinda or
the leader of any other applicant country that that is the case?

The UK, with a population of sixty million, has ten regions (but not ten regional governments). With
regard to the requirements for territorial units, could the Commission indicate whether it believes that the
national territory of Slovakia, with a population of only five and a half million, could double as a region
for the purposes of the acquis, and what area and population size the Commission believes is optimal for a
region under the NUTS classifications?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Questions of decentralisation and the internal political and administrative organisation of a Member State
are matters for that country alone. The Commission has never suggested to any of the candidate countries
that they should establish regional governments.

However, the Union does require an appropriate framework based on objective statistical criteria within
which to implement the regional policy financed by the Structural Funds. The Commission set up the
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) in order to have a single coherent and comparable
method of classifying the regions of the Union and drawing up Community regional statistics. This
nomenclature has been used since 1989 to identify target regions in order to ensure the concentration of
Community assistance.

Accordingly, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural
Funds (1), the regions eligible under Objective 1 in 2000-2006 are the NUTS level 2 regions whose per
capita gross domestic product
the Community average. The managing
authorities are designated by the Member State at national, regional or local level.

is less than 75 % of

(GDP)

In order to provide a solid and transparent legal basis, on 14 February 2001 the Commission adopted
a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a
common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) (2) on which Parliament has adopted
a report. It is now being discussed by the Council. Under this proposal for a Regulation, the average size of
NUTS level 2 territorial units would lie between 800 000 and three million people.

The NUTS was extended to the candidate countries by agreement between the country concerned and the
Commission. The whole of the territory of Slovakia is regarded as a NUTS level 1 region. Four territorial
units are regarded as being at NUTS level 2.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001.

(2002/C 277 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1021/02

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Air traffic noise

Air traffic noise is a general problem but under the Commission proposal (1) noise management will
become the responsibility of airports that have 50 000 or more movements a year.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/133

Although the text recognises the need to abandon high-noise-level aircraft equipped with imperfectly
functioning noise-reduction devices (the famous US-backed hushkits), it has been substantially watered
down in this way so European ministers can renegotiate the agreements with their American counterparts.

Does the Commission have no concern about the public reaction to measures that authorise differing
conditions for people who live near airports, despite the fact that they are subject to the same noise
nuisance? Does it not think that in the circumstances it would be appropriate to lower the thresholds?

(1) COM(2001) 695.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The proposed directive to which the Honourable Member refers has been adopted by Parliament and the
Council (Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the
establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating
restrictions at Community airports) (1) and entered into force on the date when it was published in the
Official Journal.

The Directive implements throughout
the EU the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
guidelines on noise management adopted at the 33rd ICAO Assembly in Montreal (25 September to
5 October 2001) and set out in Resolution A 33/7, particularly Appendix C D Policies and programmes
based on a ‘balanced approach’ to aircraft noise management D and Appendix E D Local noise-related
operating restrictions at airports D thereto.

The resolution is an international agreement. There is consequently no need for agreements to be
renegotiated with our American counterparts.

The Commission does not share the view that the new Directive will create differing conditions for people
living near airports.

Real sound-pollution levels are not identical at all airports. The Commission has therefore advocated a
case-by-case approach allowing solutions to be optimised to suit each individual airport.

The threshold above which the Directive is applicable has been set at 50 000 movements a year to make it
consistent with the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the
assessment and management of environmental noise (2) because Directive 2002/30/EC makes use of some
of the airport environmental noise data to be obtained under the proposed Directive.

Another reason for selecting the threshold of 50 000 movements is that, where small airports are
concerned, the Member States can themselves take the necessary action.

The fact that they are not required to carry out the preliminary evaluation described in Annex II to
Directive 2002/30/EC is more likely to help them bring in measures to combat noise pollution at such
airports.

(1) OJ L 85, 28.3.2002.
(2) OJ C 337 E, 28.11.2000.

(2002/C 277 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1028/02

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Tragic death of 14 girls in Saudi Arabia

The newspaper, Arab News; and Amnesty International report that 14 girls lost their lives and dozens of
in Mecca on 11 March 2002 when the religious police
others were injured in a fire at their school