WRITTEN QUESTION E-4061/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Noise from aircraft at Eleftherios Venizelos airport.
Date: 2004-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Attica, air traffic, airport, noise, noise protection, organisation of transport, traffic regulations

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/141

Although the Galileo satellite navigation and positioning system is not chiefly intended for tele-
communications applications, it will bring a number of benefits to this sector, in particular by making
broadband systems transmission more effective. In addition, Galileo receivers will provide a privileged
platform for a series of future applications such as mobile telephones with positioning navigators and
receivers (in vehicles, for example), with an emergency call system, for which the number to dial in Europe
is 112.

(1) http://www.guadalinfo.net/

(2004/C 84 E/0179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4061/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Noise from aircraft at Eleftherios Venizelos airport

(13 January 2004)

The noise caused by aircraft landing at and taking off from Eleftherios Venizelos, Athens international
airport, is severely disturbing the 400 000 inhabitants of the region.

With one voice, the Municipal Council of Vari (cid:1) whose views are shared by the Ombudsman (cid:1) accuses
the responsible bodies (the Civil Aviation Service and the Airport Administration) of allowing aircraft to fly
over densely populated areas in order to save a trifling amount of time and fuel instead of turning in from
the sea, which is 5-10 kilometres further, despite recommendations to the contrary from competent
aviation organisations. Moreover, the airport operates throughout the night, often allowing noisy aircraft
to fly overhead in breach of Directive 2002/30/EC (1)

What measures can the Commission take to ensure that:

1.

the appropriate basic procedures for landing and take-off are selected, the noise produced is reduced
and air corridors are mapped out to minimise the disturbance from passing aircraft;

2. on the basis of the ‘polluter-pays-principle’, air traffic control towers operate noise monitoring systems

to impose fines on companies using noisy aircraft approaching the airport;

3. night flights are restricted to the absolutely essential, which is a rule already in force at many major

airports in Europe?

(1) OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 40.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Directive 2002/30/EC (1) contains no provisions on a maximum threshold for noise emissions from
overflying aircraft.

Its purpose is to define the conditions and procedures which must be complied with before noise-related
operating restrictions can be introduced.

The scope of the Directive is to lay down rules on the withdrawal of the noisiest aircraft of Chapter 3 of
Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation and on the introduction of partial operating
restrictions which limit the operation of civil subsonic aeroplanes in given time periods.

Although the Directive provides a framework which must be respected when introducing operating
restrictions, it is in no way confined to imposing standards for the level of noise emissions from aircraft.

C 84 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Commission takes the view that flight paths for landing and take-off need to be established on the
basis of the local situation of each airport. Accordingly, and in view of the considerable variety of local
situations, it is appropriate for decisions in this field to be taken at local/national level.

Consequently, given the answer to the previous question, it falls to the local/national authorities to specify
the optimal number and the location of equipment to monitor the level of noise emissions.

As indicated above, the Member States have the means (cid:1) in the form of Directive 2002/30/EC (cid:1)
to impose restrictions on the number of night flights, should they so wish, while respecting a minimum
number of harmonised rules.

As the situation regarding excessive noise emissions varies from one airport to another, account needs to
be taken of the number of people actually affected by the noise and of the results of a cost/benefit analysis
to assess the economic and social impact of such a measure.

More generally, European legislation will, in future, allow noise problems around airports to be addressed
within a wider framework, under the provisions of Directive 2002/49/EC relating to the assessment and
management of environmental noise (2). According to this Directive, competent authorities in Member
States are required to produce noise maps around major airports (3) (no later than 30 June 2007), to
inform the public about noise exposure and its effects, and to draw up action plans (no later than 18 July
2008) to reduce noise where necessary and to maintain environmental noise quality where it is good.

(1) Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of
rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports.
(2) Directive 2002/49/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and

management of the environmental noise, OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.

(3) Civil airports having more than 50 000 movements per year (cid:1) a movement being a take-off or a landing (cid:1)

excluding those purely for training purposes on light aircraft.

(2004/C 84 E/0180)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4067/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Cofinancing of the Júcar-Vinalopó conduit and environmental conditions

On 18 December 2003 the Commission gave its definitive approval to the cofinancing of the Júcar-
Vinalopó diversion. The conditions which the Spanish authorities have to fulfil to receive the funds are:
carrying-out of studies to determine an ecological volume for the Júcar before proceeding to the transfer of
resources to the Vinalopó, as well as an ecological volume for the coastal wetlands such as the Albufera;
guarantees that the waters of the Valencian river will not be mingled with those of the Ebro and that the
latter will not be used to offset any deficits attributable to the diversion to Alicante; and compliance with
the framework water directive (including full integration of costs when setting the price of water).

On the same day, according to the newspaper ‘Heraldo de Aragón’ (18 December 2003), Mr Pascual
Fernández, the Spanish secretary of state responsible for water, said in Saragossa that the only option ruled
out was that of ‘using the Júcar-Vinalopó channels to transport water to the Ebro’, and that, in any case,
‘there are many other rivers in the Júcar basin and the document refers only to the Júcar, not the basin’.

The representative of the Spanish Environment Ministry did not specify whether there are plans to divert
water to the Júcar when he cited Article 17 of the law on the National Hydrographic Plan, which specifies