WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Initiation of proceedings before the European Court of Justice in respect of State aid for Olympic Airways.
Date: 2003-03-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, State aid, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, air transport, application of EU law, judgment of the Court (EU), redemption

C 11 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

According to the information available to the Commission, the price of issuing and renewing residence
permits of third-country nationals is not so high in the other Member States, regardless of the reasons for
which they are residing.

With regard to Union citizens, the Commission confirms, following discussion with the Dutch authorities,
that the Dutch circular on the 2000 foreigners act has been altered and that the cost of temporary
residence permits (under one year or under five years) for Union citizens has increased from EUR 15,88 to
EUR 28. A Union citizen may request a residence permit for an indefinite duration.

Community legislation regarding the right of Community nationals to move and reside freely stipulates
that residence permits shall be issued free of charge or against payment of a sum not exceeding any
charges nationals are required to pay to be issued with an identity card. The Commission has checked that
the increase in the price of residence permits for Community nationals and members of their family was
almost identical to that of identity cards for nationals which cost EUR 28,77. The increase is therefore non-
discriminatory in relation to residence permits for nationals and is in accordance with Community law.

As far as the common immigration policy is concerned, the proposal for the right to family reunification
on which the Council recently reached political agreement subject to Parliament’s opinion, does not
stipulate what the cost of a residence permit should be for family members who are third-country
nationals. However, this proposal lists briefly the grounds on which the residence permits of these family
members may be withdrawn or not renewed. Within this context, the fact that a person is unable to pay
the cost of his or her residence permit is not considered sufficient reason to withdraw his or her residence
permit.

Specific provisions have been introduced regarding the cost of residence permits in other Commission
proposals for directives concerning the entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of
paid employment or self-employed economic activities (1), studies, vocational
training or voluntary
service (2) and in the proposal concerning the status of long-term residents (3). It is proposed that these be
issued free of charge or against payment of a sum not exceeding any charges nationals are required to pay
to be issued with an identity card, or that the level of charges should not exceed the administrative costs
incurred. These proposals are nevertheless still being negotiated in the Council and are not yet positive
law.

(1) OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
(2) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
(3) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(2004/C 11 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0663/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Initiation of proceedings before the European Court of Justice in respect of State aid for Olympic

Airways

The Commission representative has announced that the Commission will shortly be initiating proceedings
against Greece before the Court of Justice, because Olympic Airways (OA) is refusing to comply with the
decision providing for the reimbursement of State aid amounting to EUR 194 million. The Legal Council
of State argues in its opinion that the State is only obliged to pay the sum of EUR 41 million, since this is
the precise sum specified in the judgement.

1.

How can the difference of EUR 153 million be accounted for?

2.
Is it true that the same representative has threatened OA, saying that the Commission would re-open
the dossier on State aid since 1994 if the company appealed to the Court of Justice about this judgement?
If so, is this not tantamount to abolishing the basic right of Member States to judicial protection when
their rights are infringed by decisions by the EU institutions?

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/105

In the wake of these actions, does it agree that the Commissioner gives the impression that she is
3.
pursuing a personal vendetta against OA, since there is a risk that recourse by the Member State in
question to the Court of Justice may trigger reprisals by the Commission? To what extent is this conduct
justified by the need to protect freedom of competition which should constitute the only motive for, and
at the same time the limit of, the Commission’s actions?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

As guardian of the Treaties, the Commission not only enforces Community law but also abides by it.
Consequently, it is not the role of the Commission to comment on appeals lodged against its decisions. In
a Community based on the rule of law it is absolutely fundamental that the parties concerned must be able
to assert their legal rights.

This, in short, echoes what the Commission representative said.

What is more, in reply to the question of whether referral to the Court of First Instance could result in an
increase in the amount of aid to be repaid, if the aid paid since 1994 were to be included, the Commission
spokesman simply stated that this would depend on the wording of the ruling by the Court.

This being the case,
in accordance with the EC Treaty the decision adopted by the Commission in
December 2002 is binding on Greece and must be acted on within the time limits set. The appeal lodged
by Olympic Airways before the Court of First
these
circumstances, Greece must proceed rapidly to recover not only the EUR 41 million but also the other
unlawful aid.

Instance has no suspensory effect. Under

At this stage, according to the information available to the Commission, Greece has taken no measures to
act on the decision of 11 December 2002.

The Commission will ensure compliance with Community law, in this case as in all others, with the aid of
all the instruments placed at its disposal by the Treaties.

(2004/C 11 E/105)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0664/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Telemedicine for remote Greek islands

(6 March 2003)

Three helicopters used for airlifting patients from small Aegean islands have crashed over the last two
years, killing 14 persons.

As a result, the system for airlifting patients by helicopter which was funded by the Commission has now
broken down.

The only constant in the healthcare system on these islands is the Greek National Health System’s
telemedicine system. It has also received EU funding and links up 40 small hospitals, health centres and
regional clinics to the programme’s reference centre which is located in the Sismanogleio hospital in the
prefecture of Attica.

In view of the above, will the Commission say:

1. Can it confirm that the Greek State has assigned staff capable of meeting the demands of the network

24 hours a day to the telemedicine unit of Sismanogleio hospital?