WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/99 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Protecting air transport consumers.
C 219 E/68 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 The fact that these expenses are tax-deductible in some countries and not in others could be seriously detrimental to free competition. Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (2 December 1999) In the absence of harmonisation measures, direct taxation falls within the Member Statesí sphere of freedoms competence, subject provided for by the Treaty. to observance of Community law and in particular the fundamental As part of the efforts to combat corruption, the Council of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted, in April 1996, a recommendation that its members should prohibit the tax deductibility of bribes paid to foreign public officials. The signing of the Convention of 17 December 1997 on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions has had a major impact on the revision of the contracting countriesí legislation in implementation of the 1996 recommendation. In its communication of 21 May 1997 (1) on the EUís anti-corruption policy, the Commission stated that it would raise the question of tax deductibility for bribes with the Member States in the appropriate fora, with a view to reaching consensus to abolish such provisions in the framework of a joint concerted move. According to the information available to the Commission, all the Member States who still allowed firms to deduct bribes to foreign public officials from their profits have already amended their legislation or are about to do so in order to implement the positions taken by the OECD and the Commission on ending the deductibility of bribes. (1) COM(97) 192 final. (2000/C 219 E/081) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2020/99 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Protecting air transport consumers The European Union has already produced a major corpus of legislation on protecting air transport consumers; I refer specifically to the legislation concerning the turning back of passengers with reserva- tions. However, the situation is still highly unsatisfactory, and I would ask: Has the Commission already carried out any checks on the application of Regulation No 295/91 (1) 1. on airlines? 2. If so, with what results, and if not, why not? Does the Commission believe that there already exists a legal basis to protect consumers with regard 3. to: 3. 1. airline liability baggage? 3. 2. airline liability if flights are cancelled for commercial reasons? 3. 3. minimum comfort and health protection for air travellers, particularly as regards adequate space? If so, what is this legal basis, and how does the Commission evaluate its application hitherto? If not, 4. does the Commission not think it ought to initiate legislation in these areas? (1) OJ L 36, 8. 2. 1991, p. 5. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/69 Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (22 December 1999) Action in this area has so far been taken as part of the development of the common transport policy in the aviation sector (Article 80(2) of the EC Treaty (ex Article 84)). The amended provisions on consumer protection included in the new Treaty (Article 153 (ex Article 129a)) reinforce the case for action to protect the rights of passengers. The Commission has issued a call for tender earlier this year with a view to letting a contract for the assessment of the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 of 4 February 1991 establishing common rules for a denied-boarding compensation system in scheduled air transport. The different tenders received are now being examined and the contract will be awarded soon. The results are expected in the first half of 2000 and will help focus the Commissionís initiatives to ensure full application of the Regulation. There are no specific Community rules covering the liability of air carriers for baggage. In this matter, national rules apply to domestic air transport within each Member State, while transport between Member States is covered by the outdated Warsaw Convention of 1929 and its subsequent revisions. The Montreal Convention agreed in May 1999, which will eventually replace the Warsaw Convention in its entirety, creates new rules for international transport which could also be extended by Community legislation to cover domestic intra-Community air traffic within Member States. This would create a uniform system for In drawing up its proposals for Community ratification and all implementation of the new Montreal Convention, the Commission will consider this issue carefully, taking account of the opinion expressed by the Parliament during discussion of Council Regulation (EC) 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (1), that common rules for baggage should be included in any Community liability system. transport on Community airlines. As regards liability for cancellation, the draft common position reached on the amendment of Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (2), would extend the compensation scheme for denied boarding to cover passengers who are delayed because the airline cancels their flight. The issue of comfort and space on board aircraft will be addressed along with a full range of consumer issues in a forthcoming Commission consultation paper on passenger rights. The consultation paper will be sent out to all interested parties and, of course, to the Parliament. The results of the consultation will be used to form future policy in this area. (1) OJ L 285, 17. 10. 1997, p. 1. (2) OJ C 120, 18. 4. 1998, p. 18. (2000/C 219 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/99 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission (9 November 1999) Subject: Discrimination against German vehicle recovery firms 1. Is the Commission aware that under the existing law (§ 15a, StVO: Road Traffic Regulations) German vehicle recovery firms may only tow vehicles on German motorways to the next exit and that the towing operation must be completed no more than 100 km from the point where the beakdown occurs? 2. Is the Commission also aware that foreign vehicle recovery firms operating on German motorways remove vehicles which have had an accident, or which have become inoperable because of some other damage, without any distance restriction? (For example, the firm van der Zandt (Holland) uses recovery vehicles to take tractor units in working order as far as Irschenberg in Bavaria and transports damaged tractor units from there back to the Netherlands). Is the Commission aware that EU firms receive exemption permits of unlimited validity from 3. consulates or embassies, but that German firms are not allowed to complete such journeys?