WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/02 by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Subsidies for German airlines.
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to undertakings, air transport, economic consequence, financial loss, terrorism, transport company

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/127

Despite the many benefits of these developments, these infrastructures have their own vulnerabilities and
offer new opportunities for criminal conduct. The Commission is concerned about
the increasing
including the incidents of abuse and fraud to which the question of the
prevalence of cybercrime,
Honourable Member refers.
In January 2001, the Commission issued its first comprehensive policy
statement on cybercrime, the Communication ‘Creating a safer information society by improving the
security of information infrastructures and combating computer-related crime’ (1).

With respect to the use of the full potential of the new and converging technologies, including how to
effectively act against abuse, there is a learning process for users, service providers and law enforcement. In
the past few years, the Commission has issued a number of legislative initiatives that seek to protect users
and give law enforcement instruments to tackle the new types of crime.

In the context of the types of abuse and fraud mentioned in the question, one of these instruments is
Directive 97/7/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in
respect of distance contracts (2). This Directive imposes information requirements, a right of withdrawal
and provisions against the fraudulent use of payment cards and inertia selling and it obliges the Member
States to ensure that effective judicial and/or administrative means for redress exist. The deadline for
implementation in the Member States was June 2000.

More recently, a Framework Decision on attacks against information systems has been proposed by the
Commission (3). This proposal contains provisions that would approximate criminal
law provisions for
illegal access to or illegal interference with information systems. Provided that the conditions under this
instrument are present it could be relevant for the situation that an abusive service provider would install
software on a computer without the authorisation of the user. This proposal is currently being discussed in
the Council and in the Parliament.

In addition to initiatives in the European Union, in the context of the Council of Europe of Strasbourg, a
Convention on Cybercrime has been concluded in November 2001 and is now open for signature and
ratification. The Commission participated in the negotiations as an observer. It has so far been signed by
12 Member States and will enter into force when ratified by at least five signatories, including at least three
Member States of the Council of Europe. This Convention contains relevant provisions on computer-
related fraud.

The Commission will continue to actively follow the developments concerning cybercrime and
cybersecurity and will propose additional initiatives when necessary.

(1) COM(2000) 890 final.
(2) OJ L 144, 4.6.1997.
(3) COM(2002) 173 final.

(2003/C 52 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2072/02

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Subsidies for German airlines

Does the Commission intend to approve the compensation payments of EUR 71 million to German
airlines (EUR 70 million to Lufthansa and EUR 1 million to Deutsche BA), despite the preferential
treatment received by both companies compared to SMEs?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The Commission has already, on 2 July 2002, authorised the aid scheme to compensate German
companies for the losses caused by the closure of certain sections of airspace between 11 and
14 September 2001. The Commission confirms that compensation of up to EUR 71 million is available
under the scheme.

C 52 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission decision is fully in line with the communication of 10 October 2001 ‘The repercussions
of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the air transport industry’ (1), in which it accepted that some
types of aid, including those for costs caused by the closure of airspace, may be awarded exceptionally to
the air transport sector ‘to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences’
(in the words of Article 87(2)(b) of the EC Treaty).

Nonetheless, the Commission took the view that a number of objective conditions had to be met before
authorising such emergency aid schemes.

The German scheme meets all the required criteria:

(cid:1) compensation is paid only for the costs incurred during the four days in question following the

grounding of air traffic decided by the American authorities,

(cid:1) compensation is calculated objectively on the basis of the loss of revenue during that period, adjusted

according to the costs avoided or additional costs incurred,

(cid:1) compensation is paid in a non-discriminatory manner to all German airlines.

(1) COM(2001) 574 final.

(2003/C 52 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2079/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Failure to award Urban II funding for the city of Rome

In the context of the last Urban programme the city of Rome accumulated severe delays in the execution
of the project and this even led to a partial reduction in the funding initially granted. Under the current
Urban II the city of Rome, according to information issued by the Italian Ministry for Infrastructure and
Transport and data supplied by the Commission website, is totally excluded from any funding, since it is
not included either among the first 10 European recipient cities or the 20 cities subsequently included in
the Urban II programme for Italy (Law 388/2000). The city of Rome is apparently in 39th place on the
official
list. Urban is undoubtedly one of the most efficient EU programmes so far and is a valuable
instrument for the development of the suburbs of major metropolitan areas and, in general, the urban
areas affected by environmental and social problems (cid:1) for example, Milan is the second city on the list.

In view of the above, can the Commission say for what reasons (defects in form or substance, delayed
submission of the application, inappropriate or inadequate documentation, etc.) the project submitted by
the city of Rome proved unsuitable to receive funding?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2002)

After the Commission issued its Communication to the Member States of 28 April 2000 laying down
guidelines for the Urban II Community Initiative (1), the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport published,
in the Italian Gazzetta ufficiale No 168 of 20 July 2000, a call for proposals in order to select the Italian
towns eligible for finance under the Urban II Community Initiative.

This announcement correctly reflected the eligibility criteria set out
in the above Commission
Communication and further specified the arrangements for evaluation and selection used by the Italian
Ministry for the general ordering by merit of the applications received. On that basis, the national
authorities classified these applications, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Given the amount
of funding allocated to Italy for Urban II and the aim of concentrating assistance on a limited number of