WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Disruption of environmental policy by rock-bottom short-hop air fares within the EU by a non-European airline.
Date: 2002-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, common transport policy, competition law, dumping, environmental impact, fixing of prices, foreign enterprise, intra-EU transport, ticket

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/113

Accordingly, on 20 December 2002 the Commission sent Parliament and the Council a proposal for a
regulation (1) to prohibit the transport of heavy oil products in single hull tankers bound for or leaving EU
ports and to bring forward the timetable for phasing out single hull tankers adopted as part of the Erika I
package.

The Commission asked the Council and Parliament to examine the text as a matter of urgency with a view
to its being adopted.

In order that the impact of the pollution on the Spanish coast may be assessed, the Commission is
planning to co-finance a study of the environmental repercussions of the accident. Contacts are already
under way with the Spanish authorities.

(1) COM(2002) 780 final.

(2003/C 161 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Disruption of environmental policy by rock-bottom short-hop air fares within the EU by a non-

European airline

Is the Commission aware that VARIG Brazilian Airlines has been using travel agencies and the
1.
Internet to promote flights between Schiphol and Charles de Gaulle airports at a one-way fare of EUR 19
without restrictions and including an in-flight drink and snack?

Is VARIG entitled, on the strength of the fact that a 281-seater Boeing 777 is flown on a daily
2.
scheduled flight from Sao Paulo via Paris to Amsterdam, automatically to assume the right to promote
special offers within the EU at dumping-level fares 75 % lower than those charged by other airlines and
lower even than the frequently travelled high-speed rail link on the same route?

3. What impact are such dumping fares having on the viability of the efforts advocated in the
Commission’s communication on air transport and the environment (1), and also laid down in its White
Paper, to limit pressures on airports and air space by establishing and maintaining a European high-speed
train network on medium-distance routes?

4.
Does the Commission consider the state of affairs referred to in question 1 as exemplifying ‘the
normal functioning of the market mechanism’, ‘the principle of freedom to provide transport services’ and
‘complementary elements in the transport chain’, as understood in its answer to my Written Question
E-3387/00 (2), or does it take the view that the limits of the acceptable have now been exceeded?

5. What options are open to the Commission for calling a halt to such disruptive practices? Will it
make use of such options?

If no such options are as yet available, will the Commission introduce arrangements enabling

6.
corrective action to be taken?

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.
(2) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 45.

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The Commission had not been aware of the commercial practices of the company in question on the
Paris-Amsterdam route until the Honourable Member raised the issue.

C 161 E/114

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Varig’s right to fly on the intra-Community route concerned stems from the bilateral agreements concluded
between Brazil on the one part, and France and the Netherlands on the other. These agreements concluded
by individual Member States might contain provisions which are incompatible with Community law. The
Commission has no direct powers concerning the fares charged by non-Community companies on the
basis of bilateral agreements. The Commission is working towards bringing these agreements into line with
Community law. Its work has been strengthened since the Court of Justice, in its so-called ‘Open Sky’ (1)
judgments of 5 November 2002, included intra-Community fares and rates among the specific areas where
the Community has exclusive competence (2). The Commission will make all the necessary proposals to
ensure that a new generation of agreements are signed at Community level which ensure full compatibility
with the Community framework, in particular by asking the Council to adopt a negotiating mandate.

Given the limited scope of this type of intra-Community operation, the communication entitled ‘Transport
and the environment’ (3) does not explicitly cover the environmental impact of non-Community airlines
exercising intra-Union traffic rights. However, the ‘acquis communautaire’ on environmental requirements
in the field of air transport, and proposed measures regarding the promotion of intermodal operations,
also cover companies from third countries.

The Commission will continue to work for progress on harmonising charging and taxation principles
across transport modes as outlined in the recent White Paper entitled ‘European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide’ (4). In this regard, it recalls its 1997 proposal for a Council Directive restructuring the
Community framework for the taxation of energy products (5) which is pending before the Council of
Ministers.

Economic regulations in the air transport market, as explained by the Commission in its answer to Written
Question E-3387/00 (6), are accompanied by a series of other obligations on operators aimed at increasing
security, safety and air traffic control and improving the environmental
impact. The Commission will
ensure that the ‘acquis communautaire’ in this matter is further developed based on the general approach
to transport policy as presented recently in the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide’ (7).

(1) Cases C-466/98, C-467/98, C-468/98, C-469/98, C-471/98, C-472/98, C-475/98 and C-476/98, Commission v. the

United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria and Germany.

(2) Commission communication on the consequences of the Court judgements of 5 November 2002 for European air

transport policy, COM(2002) 649.

(3) COM(1999) 640 final.
(4) COM(2001) 370 final.
(5) OJ C 139, 6.5.1997.
(6) OJ C 174, 19.6.2001.
(7) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 161 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3619/02

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2002)

Subject: Rehabilitation of the SCI areas damaged by the sinking of the ‘Prestige’

On 13 November 2002 the oil tanker Prestige suffered an accident which has had a devastating effect on
the Galician coast and, in particular, on areas designated as SCIs in connection with the Natura 2000
Network.

I have noted what the Commission has published in its ‘memo’ on the Internet page of the DG for Energy
and Transport with regard to the Erika I and II packages of measures and the new, specific proposals for
the Prestige case. Would the Commission, however, provide more information about the measures it has
devised in order to ensure that the protected areas damaged by the oil spillage from the Prestige (namely
the Natura 2000 Network-designated SCIs) recover from an ecological point of view?