WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/03 by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Alterations to the technical and administrative structure of Genoa airport.
Date: 2003-03-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, administrative structures, air traffic, air traffic control, air transport, airport, organisation of transport

C 268 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

With regard to the funds managed centrally by the Commission (pilot projects, thematic actions, language
skills, transnational networks, reference tools), the search check for the municipalities of Frosinone,
Fiumincino, Ancona, Carrara, Florence, Livorno, Macerata, Massa, Perugia, Pesaro, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, Siena
and Terni showed that:

(cid:1) only Pesaro has submitted a proposal for a pilot project under the Leonardo programme. This project
‘Laboratori Tematici Virtuali: Metodologia di Supporto alla Formazione Nel Sel (Sistema
fostering training in local

thematic workshops: methodology for

(virtual

is entitled:
Economico Locale)’
economies);

(cid:1) it obtained funding of EUR 264 161 for this project, which began at the end of 2002.

The Honourable Member could contact the local authorities mentioned above for more information.

(2003/C 268 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/03

by Mario Mauro (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Alterations to the technical and administrative structure of Genoa airport

In 1980 there came into being in Italy a flight-handling authority which in 1981 was succeeded by a
flight-handling company organised as follows:

(cid:1) four regional flight-handling centres, each run by an executive director;

(cid:1) two main airports (Rome-Fiumicino and Milan-Linate), each run by an executive director;

(cid:1) all other airports, large or small, each run by non-executive staff.

When the technical and administrative structure of the Directorate-General was recently overhauled
(on 11 February 2003), airports were subdivided into different categories, even though they all had the
same role and tasks:

(cid:1) four ACCs (Rome, Milan, Padua and Brindisi regional control centres), each run by an executive

director;

(cid:1) three SAAVs (Rome-Fiumicino, Milan-Linate and Milan-Malpensa airports), each run by an executive

director;

(cid:1) eight CAAVs (Bari, Bologna, Catania, Naples, Olbia, Palermo, Turin and Venice airports), each run by

an executive director;

(cid:1) fifteen UAAVs (all other airports which provide control-tower services, including Genoa), each run by

an official;

(cid:1) thirteen NAAVs (airports at which control-tower services are not provided, only an information

service).

The exclusion of Genoa from the CAAVs defies all logic:

(cid:1) Genoa is one of the few Italian airports at which comprehensive services (including a radar service)

have always been provided;

(cid:1) although the airport is not one of the busiest it should undoubtedly be regarded as one of the most
important on account of the fact that it provides comprehensive services, is conveniently situated and
enjoys a good weather record (which means that it has always been used when necessary as a
diversionary airport in northern Italy);

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/153

(cid:1) of the eight CAAVs, Bari airport has no radar and in terms of movements is no busier than Genoa,
Catania, although busier, has no radar and provides only control-tower services, whilst Olbia is similar
to Genoa in terms of facilities and number of aircraft movements.

Would the Commission say why it was thought that such restructuring was called for?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Normally CAAV airports (Centri Aeroportuali di Assistenza al Volo, Airport Centres for Flight Assistance)
are chosen on the basis of volume and complexity of traffic as well as of their geographical location.

It is true that according to these parameters, Genova is well equipped and enjoys more movements than
other airports that have retained the CAAV qualification, such as Olbia, Bari and Catania. However, these
airports serve wider areas due to their geographical location than Genova could have done as it is close to
other major centres like Milano and Torino.

Therefore, the determination by the Italian authorities not to retain Genova as a CAAV airport appears to
be reasonable. The Commission should point out that in any event there is no basis in law for it to
intervene in Member States’ decisions on these matters.

(2003/C 268 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Subject: Israeli authorities’ refusal to grant parole to Mordechai Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu has been in jail
in Israel since 1986 for divulging details of his country’s nuclear
programme in 1986. There had been signs that Vanunu, who spent more than 11 years in solitary
confinement, might be granted his freedom in recognition of the harsh treatment that he has suffered.
However, in February a parole board decided that Vanunu will not be granted an early release, on the
grounds that he could still cause ‘grave damage’ by divulging what he knows.

This is a highly tenuous argument, especially as more recent disclosures about Israel’s nuclear programme
have prompted no official complaint. More importantly, the behaviour of the Israeli authorities with regard
to the abduction, the conduct of the judicial procedure, and the conditions in which Mordechai Vanunu is
being detained have been unacceptable. Vanunu should be released immediately.

Moreover, given current concern about weapons of mass destruction and the need for non-proliferation,
there are particularly strong grounds for his release.

In this light, does the Commission intend to take any action with regard to Vanunu’s case?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2003)

The Commission is aware of
the conditions in which Mordechai Vanunu has been held since his
conviction, and would certainly be glad to see them normalised and would welcome his early release. It
shares the view that, in terms of the original purpose of the measure, which was to prevent Mr Vanunu