WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/99 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination against German vehicle recovery firms.
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rules apply to domestic air transport within each Member State, while transport between Member States is covered by the outdated Warsaw Convention of 1929 and its subsequent revisions.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? C 219 E/70 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Is the Commission aware of the expert opinion of TÜV Verkehr und Fahrzeug GmbH of April 1998 4. which explicitly states that if the newer generation of recovery vehicles is used (with hydraulic under- carriages) German firms can recover heavy vehicles, safely and with no risk to traffic, if the requirements set out in the expert opinion are complied with? 5. What action is the Commission intending to take against this effective distortion of competition? Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) The Commission is aware that German legislation limits the distance over which recovery vehicles may tow broken down vehicles on German motorways. The Commission has however no knowledge of the treatment of particular non-German breakdown services, in particular of the fact that German embassies grant to non-German firms exceptional licences enabling them to recover vehicles on German motorways over longer distances than generally provided in the relevant German rules. Furthermore, the Commision is not aware of the expert opinion mentioned by the Honourable Member. Nevertheless the Commission considers that if the practices described were to be followed, such decisions by the German authorities to grant more favourable conditions to firms established in Member States other than Germany would not contravene the rules and principles of Community law. Member States are allowed under Community law to apply stricter rules to their nationals or to firms established on their territory. (2000/C 219 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2027/99 by Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL) and Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 November 1999) Subject: Route of the high-speed rail link between Madrid and Valladolid The Spanish authorities will shortly finalise the route of the high-speed rail link between Madrid and Valladolid which is part of the Alta Velocidad del Sur project, one of the 14 priority projects supported by the European Union in the context of trans-European transport networks. More specifically, for the section of the route exiting Madrid, the Ministry of Public Works must choose between the corridor which cuts through the towns of Tres Cantos and Soto del Real, which would involve building a large tunnel through the Guadarrama hills, and the Villalba corridor, which, according to the recently published environmental impact assessment, would involve less cost in both economic and environmental terms since it follows the path of the existing Madrid-Segovia line. In addition, the Spanish government could use the savings resulting from the latter option of improve- ments to an existing line to increase the accessibility of the north and north-west of the Iberian peninsula through investing in the modernisation of other rail links, such as that between Valladolid and Portugal and the Palencia-La Coruæa and León-Gijón lines. This would be the best way to fulfil the criteria and objectives set out in the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund regulations and derive the maximum economic, social and environmental benefit from the project. What is the Commissionís assessment of the possible routes mentioned for the stretch of track in question? Could the Commission enter into talks with the Spanish government in the hope of encouraging it to opt for the route along the Villalba corridor?