WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3520/98 by Amedeo AMADEO Aeroplane conversion plants
11. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 289/55 difficulties encountered by some, the Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concern and intends to draw their attention again to the importance of respecting the set date. As it falls to the Commission under Article 6(3) first indent of Regulation (EC) 820/97 to judge whether each database is fully operational, it submitted to the Council and Parliament the proposal mentioned by the Honourable Member. Work on it is not yet complete within the Council. In the meantime a questionnaire has been sent to all Member States and following receipt of the first replies the first Commission decisions recognising databases should be issued in the first half of 1999. (1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997. (1999/C 289/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3520/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (25 November 1998) Subject: Aeroplane conversion plants With reference to the proposal for a Council regulation on the registration and use within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of Vol. I, Part II, Chapter III of Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (COM(98) 0098 final 7 98/0070/SYN) (1), although the objective of this proposal is laudable, this being to improve both protection of the environment and air transport safety whilst at the same time safeguarding existing programmes for the renewal of the fleets of European Union airlines as laid down in Directive 92/14/EEC, I would take issue with the exemption laid down in Article 4(2) in respect of civil aeroplanes exclusively operated outside the territory of the Community or in the overseas departments of France. In view of the strain which the proposed directive will place on air freight companies because those aeroplanes are relatively older and mainly use airports at night, can the Commission devise procedures to prevent the likelihood of flags of convenience springing up by virtue of the temporary exemption laid down in Article 3(3), which would lead to unfair competition against Community undertakings? (1) OJ C 118, 17. 4. 1998, p. 20. Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 January 1999) Since the prime objective of the proposed measure is to prevent a further worsening of the noise at airports located in the European territory of the Community, it was not justified to include in the scope of the measure aircraft which are not operated in that territory. This would impose an unreasonable economic burden on certain operators without any environmental benefit for the most noise sensitive airports in the Community. If the Commission receives complaints of any abuses of the exemptions possibility, it will of course act upon them in accordance with established procedures