2. ALLOCATION OF SLOTS AT COMMUNITY AIRPORTS
(a)
(22519)
10288/01
—
(b)
(23997)
14205/02
COM(02) 623
|
Draft Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports.
Amended draft Regulation amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports.
|
| Legal base: | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | (b) 7 November 2002
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | (b) 21 November 2002
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | (b) EM of 4 December 2002
|
| Previous Committee Report: | (a) (22519) 10288/01: HC 152-xxxv (2001-02), paragraph 8 (3 July 2002)
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | (Both) For debate in European Standing Committee A (decision on document (a) reported on 3 July 2002)
|
Background
2.1 The allocation of landing and taking-off slots at
Community airports is regulated by Council Regulation No. 95/93,[10]
the purpose of which is to ensure an efficient distribution of
slots in a transparent and open manner. The Commission proposes
to modify the Regulation in order to:
- clarify the legal nature of slots;
- promote efficient allocation of slots through clear rules
on methods and procedures, better definition of airport capacity
and transparent, neutral procedures of consultation and mediation;
- encourage the efficient use of slots; and
- enhance competition between incumbent carriers and new entrants.
2.2 On 3 July 2002 we recommended the draft Regulation
(document (a)) for debate in European Standing Committee A.[11]
This debate has yet to take place.
2.3 This amended draft of the proposed Regulation (document
(b)) follows the European Parliament's consideration of the original
draft in June 2002, when it suggested several amendments. The
Commission has not accepted amendments which it regards as inconsistent
with its rationale for the proposal. For the Commission the issues
central to this rationale are:
- definition of slots and new entrants;
- slot allocation should take into consideration the importance
of environmental measures and the availability of other modes
of transport;
- local rules established by the coordination committee (for
slot allocation and related matters) should be approved by the
Member State concerned to ensure compatibility with Community
law;
- the obligations of the coordinator (the authority responsible
for slot allocation and related matters) and its legal, factual
and financial independence require it to be subject to judicial
review;
- prevention of slot transfers should be the subject of a second
phase revision: until there is a new system of slot allocation
based on market options and neutral, nondiscriminatory,
transparent and fair procedures, the proposal should prohibit
slot trading and "junk slot" exchanges;
- airlines should lose their slots if they consistently and
intentionally abuse their slots and when it is clear they will
not fulfill usage requirements.
2.4 On this basis the Commission has accepted 34
of the European Parliament's amendments, 15 of these only in part
or with redrafting, and rejected 18. As a consequence of rejection
of these amendments slot transfers and all exchanges of slots
that were not one for one would be disallowed; there would be
prescriptive and inflexible re-timings and there would be no exemption
of co-ordinators from claims for damages. The Commission has also
rejected some of the amendments affecting the functioning of the
coordination committee and the definition of new entrants and
slots.
The Government's view
2.5 Whilst noting with regret the failure to accept the
European Parliament's amendments on slot transfers and retimings,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport
(Mr David Jamieson) tells us:
"In essence, the amended proposal differs little from the
initial July 2001 proposal. Progress in Working Groups has been
slow. There was limited support from other Member States for the
UK's position that secondary trading led to the more efficient
use of slots at congested airports, but extensive support for
its position that priority in allocation should be given to retimings
of historic slots."
Conclusion
2.6 As the Minister says, this document is little
different from the original proposal, which we recommended for
debate. So we recommend that document (b) be debated in European
Standing Committee A on the same occasion as document (a).
10 OJ
No. L 14, 22.1.93, p.1. Back
11
See headnote to this paragraph. Back
| 
