WRITTEN QUESTION E-3511/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Court of Justice judgment concerning bilateral aviation agreements concluded by EU Member States with other states and the implications for Member States which fail to comply with that judgment.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, United States, air transport, bilateral agreement, common transport policy, infringement of EU law, judgment of the Court (EU), third country

C 161 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

In 2001, a group of parents of adults with disabilities submitted a project to the Commission proposing
the creation of a centre for adults with disabilities. The estimated budget for this project per year/person is
± EUR 96 000.
It is clear that if such a project was pursued the current budget line would require
significant adjustment. The Commission is currently undertaking a feasibility study on the creation of a
centre for children of European officials who have disabilities. The study and its results will be submitted
to Parliament.

The Commission is fully aware of the difficult situation of parents of disabled children and is consequently
undertaking specific research (including visits to centres, collecting pedagogical projects,
identifying
available places, etc.) in order to offer help to find the best suitable places in existing facilities.

(1) depending on number of children in family (1-4).
(2) depending on the family income; scale for 1 child enrolled full time.
(3) A-4103 = ‘Special aid for the disabled’ covering non-medical costs resulting from a disability.
(4) Adopted by the Collège des Chefs d’Administration in 1994 and modified in 1999.
(5) Day centres, night centres, for adults or for children, for mental handicaps, for physical handicaps, centres for

disabled who wish to work, specific schools, residential centres, etc.

(6) Thanks to medical progress, handicapped people enjoy a longer life-expectation now.

(2003/C 161 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3511/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Court of Justice judgment concerning bilateral aviation agreements concluded by EU Member
States with other states and the implications for Member States which fail to comply with that
judgment

1.
Has the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice on 5 November 2002 concerning the
involvement of EU Member States in bilateral aviation with the United States given rise to a contradictory
state of affairs, in that, although the Court confirmed that competence to conclude agreements of this kind
no longer rests with individual Member States, but rather with the European Union as a whole, it also
stipulated that existing bilateral agreements should continue to apply, because not only the Member State
concerned, but also a third state, enjoys rights under such agreements?

2. Was the contradictory state of affairs referred to above the reason which prompted the Commission,
on 20 November 2002, to urge the Member States to take the opportunity voluntarily to terminate all
bilateral aviation agreements with the United States within one year, otherwise it would declare all existing
agreements null and void, either with immediate effect or
retrospectively? Alternatively, was the
Commission merely endeavouring to arrange a transitional period during which a fresh agreement
between the EU and the United States can be drawn up?

3. Why did the Commission wait before issuing a call to the Member States until the Court of Justice
handed down a judgment, even though it was already convinced that competence to conclude bilateral
aviation agreements with third countries should be transferred to it and even though it could be predicted
in advance that the Court judgment would not be completely binding?

4. What will happen if one or more Member States refuse to terminate their existing aviation
agreements with the United States?

5.
In connection with the aviation agreements, could a situation arise similar to that referred to in
Written Question E-1609/02 (1) on national tax cuts on oil products used by professional road hauliers,
whereby the Member States agree jointly to ignore the Commission’s calls, not to criticise other Member
States’ actions, not to impose penalties for breaches of rules they no longer regard as desirable and not to
open EU negotiations with the United States?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 145.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/99

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2003)

1.
The -judgement of the Court of Justice of 5 November 2002 has confirmed that the so-called
nationality clauses in bilateral air services agreements are contrary to Community law. As a consequence
these agreements will have to be made compatible with Community law as soon as possible, in order to
create legal certainty. The Court also established that certain elements of these agreements fall within the
exclusive external competence of the Community. Although the existing agreements between Member
States and the United States have been found to infringe Community law, this does not mean that the
agreements could have been declared void under international law.

2. Member States are under a legal obligation to give immediate effect to judgements of the Court of
Justice. In that respect a denunciation of the contested agreements would be the appropriate response to
the Court’s judgement. Until the denunciation takes effect, normally within one year after the notice of
denunciation is given, the agreements remain in force under international law and the Community should
be in a position to negotiate in order to substitute the existing agreements with a Community/United
States agreement.

3.
At various times since the completion of the internal market for civil aviation in 1993, the
Commission has formally requested the Member States to bring their bilateral aviation agreements into
conformity with Community law, eventually by activating the denunciation procedures forseen in the
agreements with the United States, stated by the Commission in its Communication dated 19 November
2002 (1).

4.
If the Member States do not ‘take the necessary measures to comply with the Judgement of the Court
of Justice’, the Commission will have no alternative other than to enter into the procedures under
Article 228 procedure of the EC Treaty. Operators affected-by the infringements identified by the Court are
of course entitled to use the appropriate legal procedures to protect the rights deriving directly from the
EC Treaty.

The Commission is encouraged by the fact that Member States have confirmed their intention to give

5.
appropriate effect to the judgement of the Court.

(1) COM(2002) 649 final.

(2003/C 161 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3514/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the Cohesion Fund in Portugal

The 21 November edition of
the Diário de Noticias reports Portuguese Government
concerning the automatic annulment of Structural Fund budgetary authorisations in Portugal.

information

Strangely, this news was not accompanied by any information as to the possible automatic annulment of
Cohesion Fund authorisations.

The Cohesion Fund is a Community instrument of the greatest importance and relevance to social and
economic cohesion, and it is absolutely essential if Portugal is to meet its environmental objectives and
comply with Community environmental legislation.

In 2002, has the Commission already authorised the amounts which correspond to the Cohesion Fund
quota for Portugal which was decided on by the Berlin Council?

If not, could the Commission indicate how much has yet to be authorised, the feasibility of such
authorisation being issued in 2002 and the implications of all of this, and also explain the situation as it
currently stands?