WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/02 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Regular international bus services under EU rules: Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 11/98.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, Sweden, airport, bus, carriage of passengers, freedom to provide services, national law, restriction on competition, transport authorisation, transport company

C 155 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

(2003/C 155 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3252/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Regular international bus services under EU rules: Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of

16 March 1992 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 11/98

After receiving authorisation from the Danish authorities for a regular bus service in accordance with
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 (1) of 16 March 1992 as amended by Regulation (EC) No 11/98 (2), a Danish
bus company has independently started up a regular bus service at its own expense on a route between the
centre of Copenhagen (Denmark) and the airport at Malmö/Sturup (Sweden).

Malmö/Sturup airport caters for a number of charter and low-cost airlines including Ryanair as well as
Swedish domestic flights. The charges at Sturup airport are much lower than at Copenhagen airport
(Kastrup) and an increasing number of Danish air travellers are therefore opting for Sturup airport as their
point of departure. These Danish passengers are using the newly established bus route (No 737) from the
centre of Copenhagen to the airport in Sweden.

An essential operational requirement for a regular bus service is the provision of permanent bus stops with
signs and timetable information to enable passengers to locate the point from which the bus leaves.
However, the local authority has refused to allow the airport bus to Sweden a central and reasonably
attractive bus stop in Copenhagen. It gives traffic considerations as its reason for not allowing this bus to
pick up and drop off passengers and luggage in a suitable central
location. The local authority has
relegated the bus service to a location outside the city where no passengers can benefit from this service to
the airport in Sweden.

The matter has already been raised with the Competition Agency in Denmark which has stated that
competition in air transport is desirable but that, at the same time, the question of establishing a bus stop
for the airport bus service to Sweden is the responsibility of Copenhagen city council. In all probability,
Copenhagen city council’s refusal to allocate a bus stop is conditioned by a desire to ensure Copenhagen
airport as much traffic as possible without regard to the costs to passengers.

Is the Commission in a position to give a ruling on Copenhagen city council’s right to prevent normal
competition between the two airports by hampering access to a swift and efficient bus link between
Copenhagen and Malmö/Sturup?

(1) OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 4, 8.1.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 11/98, lays
down common rules designed to guarantee access to international passenger transport markets to
operators in all Member States without discrimination on grounds of nationality or place of establishment.
Accordingly, it implements within the passenger transport sector the fundamental principle of the freedom
to provide services.

Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 11/98, provides that access to regular
international passenger transport services is subject to authorisation by the competent authority of the
Member State in whose territory the place of departure is located. In accordance with Article 5 of the
Regulation, this authorisation determines in particular the route of the service and the stops and timetable.

It is therefore the competent authorities of the Member States (cid:1) which may be national, regional or local
authorities (cid:1) that are responsible for examining and granting authorisation for a regular passenger service.
To this end, the competent authority of each Member State has a margin of discretion, in particular to take

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/119

account of requirements regarding safety and public policy on its territory, and more specifically on its
road network. Of course, this discretion cannot be based on criteria connected with nationality or place of
establishment. In this connection, the reasons reportedly adduced by the Danish authorities, i.e. traffic
conditions, appear to come within the powers of the Danish authorities as the public authority.

Be that as it may, it is clear that the Member States must apply the Community provisions on access to
passenger transport markets in a useful, fair and proportionate manner. Without judging the decision of
the Danish authorities in this regard, for which the Commission in any case has little information at its
disposal, the Commission notes that the argument connected with traffic management must be clearly
in the decision of the competent authorities. Moreover, the imperatives
justified, with reasons given,
connected with traffic management must be taken into account in an initiative that gives real content to a
passenger transport operator’s right to introduce a new regular service. Accordingly, the operator ought to
be authorised to introduce stops to pick up or drop off passengers that are located at places enabling him
to run a reasonable and viable service.

Where necessary,
decisions adopted by the competent authorities of Member States.

it is for the national courts to assess the reasonable and proportionate nature of

(2003/C 155 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3254/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: High values of suspended microparticles in Athens and Thessaloniki

The Greek press reports that research being carried out for the Commission by the European Earlinet
network shows that Athens and Thessaloniki have the highest values for suspended microparticles of 19
major European cities.

What are the causes of such high values for suspended microparticles? What public health risks are
associated with this phenomenon and what steps has the Commission taken under Community law to
tackle the problem?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

industrialisation and high volumes of

In most
Airborne suspended particulate matter (PM) can be either primary or secondary in nature.
European countries,
traffic mean that anthropogenic sources
predominate, especially in urban areas, and sources of anthropogenic particles are similar throughout
Europe. The most significant of these are traffic, industrial activities, combustion sources (industrial and
residential), human-started forest
fires and mechanical abrasion. For densely populated and heavily
industrialised areas like Athens and Thessaloniki the sources mentioned above have to be regarded as the
predominant causes for high concentrations of fine particles.

There is ever increasing evidence that fine particles have deleterious effects on human health, causing
premature deaths and reducing quality of life by aggravating respiratory conditions such as asthma. The
Commission has recently asked the World Health Organisation (WHO) to update the advice on the health
effects of air pollutants including PM and the results of this review will be available in spring 2003.

Existing legislation (1) defines new and ambitious long- and short term limit values (annual and daily
averages) for PM10 (mass concentration of particles below a diameter of 10 µm) in ambient air that have
to be met from 2005. In addition, various directives set limit values for particle emissions from specific
sources such as road traffic.