WRITTEN QUESTION E-3510/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Difference between national and European aviation policies in connection with the establishment of open skies and the supplanting of established airlines by newcomers.
Date: 2002-12-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, United States, air safety, air transport, bilateral agreement, common transport policy, competitiveness, environmental law, judgment of the Court (EU), negotiation of an agreement (EU)

C 222 E/78

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

(2003/C 222 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3510/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Difference between national and European aviation policies in connection with the establishment

of ‘open skies’ and the supplanting of established airlines by newcomers

Can the Commission confirm that of the 15 current Member States only Spain, Greece and Ireland
1.
have not concluded undesirable bilateral aviation agreements? Which of the 12 applicant countries due to
join the Union in 2004 and 2007 have now concluded a similar agreement with the United States or are
considering such a step prior to their accession to the EU?

Does the Commission recall its answer to Written Question E-2839/00 (1) in which it stated not only
2.
that infringement proceedings had or would be initiated against 10 Member States which had concluded
bilateral agreements with the United States since June 1992, but also that the conclusion of individual
‘open skies’ agreements by EU Member States prevented effective negotiations and that it had submitted to
the Council a proposal to establish a transatlantic common aviation area (TCAA) involving the European
Economic Area (EEA) and the United States?

3.
Is the Commission primarily seeking to define more clearly the division of competences between the
EU and its Member States on the basis of Article 10 of the Treaty, or rather to bring about changes in
aviation policy? To what extent is it really changing policy, given that the existing bilateral agreements
between Member States and the United States are being terminated?

4.
Is the Commission’s aim that of extending the gradual liberalisation within the EU which has taken
place since 1987, with the result that any airline with a valid Air Operators Certificate can claim the right
to fly any route within the EU, to cover the joint territory of the EU and the United States, something
which in practice amounts to a further strengthening of the ‘open skies’ system already operated by most
Member States and which ultimately offers no protection against cut-throat competition?

5. What implications will the policy advocated by the Commission have for future relations between
established national airlines and the emerging low-cost airlines?

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001, p. 106.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

1.
The judgements of the Court of Justice in the so-called open skies cases concerned specifically eight
Member States. However, the conclusions of the Court that certain elements of bilateral air services
agreements are contrary to Community law, are relevant for practically all such agreements to which a
Member State is a party, whether they are open skies agreements or not. Therefore, the findings of the
Court are relevant for all Member States. The majority of the accession countries has concluded open skies
agreements with the United States.

2.
The Commission has indeed made proposals to the Council for the negotiation of a Community
agreement with the United States which aim to create a Transatlantic Common Aviation Area (TCAA).
That agreement will, after its conclusion, also apply to the new Member States after their accession.

3.
The TCAA aims to go beyond the current ‘open skies’ agreements and to eliminate fragmentation of
the European market that results from existing bilateral agreements and create more operational and
financial flexibility for Community airlines.

The current regulatory framework limits the ability of Community airlines to compete effectively
4.
with their American competitors, despite the creation of a common market
for aviation in the
Community. In the new situation envisaged by the Commission the airlines of both sides will have equal
opportunities to compete, but within the limits of a strict application of the safety, security, environmental
and competition rules.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/79

The policy envisaged by the Commission will benefit, and is supported by, both low cost and
5.
traditional network carriers. Their relationship will be determined by commercial and operational
considerations, rather than by limits in bilateral air services agreements.

(2003/C 222 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/02

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE-DE) to the Council

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Statute and financing of European political parties

Since the European Parliament opinion of 17 May 2001, the Council regulation on the statute and
financing of European political parties has been the subject of a so far fruitless discussion in the Council of
Ministers. On account of criticism from the European Court of Auditors, this regulation is intended to be a
transitional measure until the entry into force of the Treaty of Nice, which establishes an autonomous legal
basis.

Any new Commission proposal in accordance with the legal basis established by the Treaty of Nice will be
debated with the European Parliament under the codecision procedure. How does the Council intend to
come to a workable solution for this transitional period that also stands up to criticism from the Court of
Auditors?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Treaty of Nice, which creates a new legal basis for the Regulation referred to in the question, entered
into force on 1 February 2003. There is thus no longer a transitional period in the sense meant by the
Honourable Member in her question.

(2003/C 222 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3526/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(10 December 2002)

Subject: Travel ban imposed on Mr Sadri Khiari

Since the beginning of October 2002, Mrs Radhia Nasraoui, lawyer at the bar of Tunis, has twice appeared
before the senior member of the investigating judges in the hope of obtaining clarification on court
proceedings relating to the events of March 1997 and March 2000 concerning her client Mr Sadri Khiari,
a painter and member of RAID/Attac Tunisie (Rally for an International Alternative for Development) and
CNLT (National Council on Liberties in Tunisia). As before, Mrs Nasraoui was given no response. However,
representatives of the interior ministry invoked these exact same alleged incidents as a justification for
forbidding Sadri Khiari to leave Tunisian territory when they finally returned his passport to him on
16 June 2001, a year after he requested it be renewed. Since that time, Mr Khairi has been to Tunis-
Carthage airport six times and on each occasion has been prevented from leaving the country.

Is the Commission aware of the travel ban on Sadri Khiari? Does the Commission not consider that the
legal authorities’ refusal to provide any information about the reasons why the travel ban was imposed,
and their repeated refusal to allow Sadri Khiari to travel freely, constitute a further example of the
arbitraryconduct of the Tunisian police and additional proof of the Tunisian authorities’ contempt for the
principle of judicial
independence, and of theexisting laws and international conventions ratified by
Tunisia? What measures has the Commission taken, or does it intend to take, under the terms of the
association agreement between the European Union and Tunisia, to ensure that the latter ends the
persecution of Mr Khiari and on a more general levelfully complies with Article 2 of the agreement?