WRITTEN QUESTION E-1822/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Transfer to airforce of EKAB (National First Aid Centre) air rescue operations.
Date: 2003-06-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU financing, Greece, air transport, emergency medical treatment, helicopter, military aircraft, safety standard

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/99

(2004/C 58 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1814/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Mario Cipollini’s arbitrary disqualification from the Tour de France

The world road cycling champion, Mario Cipollini, a professional sportsman and hence a worker, has been
barred, along with his team, from competing in the Tour de France, even though, as can be seen from his
latest brilliant victories in the Giro d’Italia, he is currently in superb form.

Does not this disqualification signify an instance of discrimination contrary to Union rules, in particular
the principle of equal treatment and free movement of Community workers on Union territory?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Honourable Member has questioned the Commission about the fact that the racing cyclist Mario
Cipollini and his team were not selected for the Tour de France. However, on the basis of the facts
presented in the Written Question, the Commission does not have any information that would lead it to
identify the presence of some form of discrimination or infringement of EU rules.

More specifically, the information available does not make it possible to establish whether the decision
taken by the organisers of the Tour de France breaches the principle of equal treatment and freedom of
movement within the internal market.

Furthermore, in accordance with the established case law of the Court of Justice (1), it should be pointed
out that the Community provisions on the free movement of persons and services do not exclude rules or
practices (such as selection criteria) which are justified on non-economic grounds relating to the nature
and specific context of certain sports meetings and events, provided that these rules or practices are non-
discriminatory and proportionate.

(1) Case 13/76, Donà / Mantero, ECR 1976, p. 1 333 Case C-415/93, Bosman, ECR 1995, p. 5 040 Joined

Cases C-51/96 and C-191/97, Deliège.

(2004/C 58 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1822/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Transfer to airforce of EKAB (National First Aid Centre) air rescue operations

In 2000, the EKAB air rescue fleet was set up with 75 % of the funding being provided under the second
Community Support Framework. Following a series of accidents, the Greek Government decided to
transfer the fleet to the airforce and reregister it accordingly with the Air Transport Utilities Command
(DAYKO) for which the airforce will assume responsibility by 20 May 2003. However, the unit has not yet
been legally formalised. This is causing serious concern, given that the strict JAA (Joint Aviation Authority)
standards do not apply to the armed forces and that the accident involving the EKAB helicopter was
largely caused by inadequate safety specifications.

1.
Is the transfer to the armed forces of helicopter crews who, under the second CSF, were considered
to be civilian emergency rescue personnel, thereby increasing the Community budget for the armed forces,
in accordance with the principles governing CSF funding?

C 58 E/100

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Does the Commission accept some of the responsibility for the fact that, following its transfer to the
2.
armed forces, the European Union-funded EKAB helicopter fleet will no longer be governed by the
stringent JAA safety rules and, in particular, JAR Code 145 on technical backup for aircraft and JAR OPS-1
and JAR OPS-3 which lay down stringent standards regarding aircraft and helicopters, their equipment, the
safety and flight experience of air crews and JAA licensing, since it is specifically stated that these rules are
binding on emergency air ambulance services but not on flights by aircraft belonging to the armed forces?

3.
Has the Commission investigated the way in which Community funds are being used for the air
ambulance fleet in Greece, the reasons for the accidents involving the A 109 Power Agusta helicopter and
ways of preventing this from occurring again in the future? Has it also looked into the decision to
purchase two Piaggio aircraft subsequently revealed to be unsuitable, leading to cancellation of the order?

4. What representations will the Commission make to the Greek Government with a view to ensuring
that emergency air rescue services remain in the civil aviation sector, rather than the airforce, as is the case
in all other Member States of
the European Union, so as to guarantee full compliance with JAA
specifications?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 July 2003)

The helicopter crews and other operational costs of the Greek National First Aid Centre (EKAB) have

1.
never been financed under the European Union’s Community Support Framework for Greece.

The Commission does not bear any responsibility for the operational safety of

these aircraft.
2.
The Greek authorities’ decision to transfer the operation of emergency air rescue services to the armed
forces means that their operation is not covered by JAA requirements. Furthermore, the provisions of JAR
OPS 1 and 3 have not been transposed into Community law.

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to Priority Question No P-546/03

3.
from Mr Xarchakos (1).

4.
The Commission does not have the power to make representations to a Member State about the civil
or military nature of the body responsible for its emergency air rescue services. These services are covered
by Community rules on freedom of movement of services,
freedom of access to the market and
competition. Therefore, measures to exclude or to prohibit activities by service providers may only be
taken if they will guarantee that their intended objective will be achieved, but they may not go beyond
what is necessary for that objective to be attained. It must be impossible to achieve the same result by
imposing less restrictive rules. Furthermore, such measures must be justified by overriding public-interest
requirements and not by economic factors and must be in proportion to the aims pursued.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 199.

(2004/C 58 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Failure to carry out a ‘preliminary inspection’

in respect of the entire Costa Dorada property
complex on the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento, Teulada (Cagliari), Sardinia, Italy

Along the coast between Malfatano and Capo Spartivento (Teulada district, Sardinia),
five holiday/
residential developments (apartment blocks, hotels, holiday homes, service units, golf courses, and so on)
have been approved (1). They lie adjacent to one another and they form part of a single 189 000 m3
complex, the plans for which have been submitted by the SITAS SpA company. The environmental
associations Amici della Terra and Gruppo d’intervento giuridico have on a number of occasions asked the