WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/02 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Single sky — Italy.
Date: 2002-06-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Civil Aviation Organisation, Italy, air law, air transport, airport, approximation of laws, civil aviation, transport regulations

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/227

(2002/C 301 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1779/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Provisions on hang-gliders and paragliders

The use of hang-gliders and paragliders has become widespread in all the EU Member States in recent
years, and the areas in which they fly often straddle different European countries.

This field is nevertheless governed by quite different national provisions, and this is true both for the
machines and for the people who fly them. Would the Commission not agree that a set of common
European rules should be defined for hang-gliders and paragliders?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

As the Honourable Member points out, hang-gliding and paragliding are sports which have grown in
popularity in recent years, as have other outdoor sports. This has brought to light the difference in
national approaches to rules concerning these disciplines.

However, the Commission does not plan to draw up a set of common European rules, as the EC Treaty
does not expressly provide for Community powers relating to sport. It is up to Member States to adopt
rules which they consider to be appropriate in this field.

(2002/C 301 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Single sky (cid:1) Italy

The diverse and complex issues connected with the single sky raise the obvious question of increasing
harmonisation between the Member States in aeronautical matters.

Italy is an interesting case in several ways: the ‘Codice della navigazione aerea’ (Air Navigation Code) dates
from 1942 and, 60 years later, is still awaiting an implementing regulation. Decades down the line, the
ICAO Annexes (18 in total) and their associated technical instructions (DOCs) have yet to be formally
transposed into Italian law. Airport servitudes (ICAO Annex 14 and Italian Law No 58 of 1963) have not
been applied in Italy, which means that its main airports are being engulfed by settlements of all shapes
and sizes.

Does the Commission have any news concerning this subject, and what harmonising measures would have
to be taken with regard to the Member States, including Italy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Italian civil aviation legislation has to be considered in the light of instruments drawn up pursuant to
international conventions and, more recently, Community activities.

A regulation implementing the 1925 Air Navigation Code is still in force. Several regulations have been
adopted to incorporate the provisions of the Annexes to the 1994 Chicago Convention and documents
relating to them into national law.

C 301 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

In 1997, the National Civil Aviation Agency (ENAC) was instructed to draw up and adopt the specific
regulations. It also prepares all administrative instruments needed to supplement the regulatory framework.

A recent audit by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)
regarding the degree of
transposition of the Annexes to the ICAO Convention by the contracting parties to it confirmed that
Italian legislation is in conformity as regards Annexes 1, 6, 8 and 18. Conformity was insufficient as
regards Annex 14 (aerodromes).

With regard to airport servitudes, Law 58 of 4 February 1963 lays down standards more restrictive than
those in Annex 14. However, the local authorities do not always follow these standards and their
application is not always subject to the necessary controls. This leads to the situation described by the
Honourable Member. However, these rules are not part of Community law and therefore cannot be the
subject of judicial control at Community level.

The Community started incorporating various international standards in the field of aviation into
Community law in the 1990s in order to make up for the present lack of harmonisation in the field of
civil aviation and thus to respond more fully to the needs of the internal market. This makes these rules
more legally binding and means that Community mechanisms can be used to make sure that they are
applied properly. The subjects covered by Annexes 2, 3, 10, 11 and 15 of the ICAO Convention are
concerned as regards the single sky.

(2002/C 301 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 June 2002)

Subject: Work-related accident in Greece and disregard of victims

In September 1999 a huge earthquake struck Athens, resulting in the destruction of dozens of buildings
and killing hundreds of people. Among the buildings destroyed was one belonging to the firm Ricomex, in
Acharnes, Attica, where 39 people were killed and ten more were injured (cid:1) four of these have permanent
disabilities. The destruction of the Ricomex building was described by the Greek authorities as a ‘work-
related accident’ (cid:1) and in fact was responsible for the highest number of fatalities of any such accident in
modern Greece. Official findings by the competent Greek public authorities reveal who was responsible for
the building’s flimsy construction and the arbitrary decisions and contraventions which occurred, and
demonstrate the building’s overall inadequacy.

It should be pointed out that almost three years after the collapse nobody has been held liable and neither
the victims’ relatives or the injured have received any proper redress. The relatives of the dead receive a
meagre pension from the state; and another typical example is an employee of the firm, now injured and
disabled, who earned a gross salary in 1999 of 262 500 drachmas (i.e. EUR 770,35) but currently receives
It should also be noted that solemn undertakings by Greek
a disability pension of EUR 475,48.
Government ministers made immediately after the accident regarding the employment of relatives of the
victims and the injured by the Greek state have never been fulfilled. The firm itself did not pay damages to
all those affected and claims that if it did so it would have to close down.

Could the Commission say whether in other EU countries victims of work-related accidents and their
relatives receive compensation, and from what source? Could the Commission obtain from the Greek
authorities the full financial details of the company involved (salaries of the members of the governing
board, sales, profits, exports abroad, loan received by the firm and security provided for it, etc.), for the
period from 1999 to now (details which are located in the Athens office of the service which deals with
the taxation of companies)? Is it right that men who were pulled out of the rubble and are now disabled
are not considered to be ‘victims of a work-related accident’ because at the moment of the collapse they
were in the building visiting the company? Is the Commission aware that children of the dead are required
by the Greek authorities to pay exorbitant amounts in tax on real property transferred to them by their
parents before they were killed in the accident? Is there a comparable precedent in any other EU country