1.AIR SERVICE AGREEMENTS
(24384)
7047/03
COM(03) 94
|
Commission Communication on relations between the Community and third countries in the field of air transport; and draft Regulation on the negotiation and implementation of air service agreements with third countries.
|
| Legal base: | Article 80(2) EC; co-decision; qualified majority voting
|
| |
| Document originated: | 26 February 2003
|
| Deposited in Parliament: | 26 March 2003
|
| Department: | Transport
|
| Basis of consideration: | EM of 4 April 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report: | None
|
| To be discussed in Council: | Not known
|
| Committee's assessment: | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision: | Not cleared; information on progress requested
|
Background
1.1 In November 2002 the European Court of Justice gave
its judgement in the so-called "Open Skies" cases against
the UK and seven other Member States, finding in the Commission's
favour on certain key issues affecting the ability of Member States
to negotiate on their own behalf with third countries.[1]
The consequences of the Court ruling have been discussed in Council
Working Group meetings on how air services negotiations with non-EU
countries might be most effectively conducted in the future. A
mandate for the Commission to negotiate a Community-level agreement
with the USA is a key element in these discussions. But the UK
and most other Member States insist that a mandate should be part
of a package covering a number of uncertainties thrown up by the
Court's decision.
The document
1.2 The Commission Communication deals with the issue
of nationality clauses in bilateral air service agreements —
including the UK's 1977 agreement with the USA, which the Court
found to be incompatible with the right of establishment. The
Commission seeks a mandate to open negotiations with all bilateral
partners with the aim of securing non-discriminatory market access
in international agreements for all Community carriers. But it
recognises that such negotiations with all bilateral partners
may be a lengthy task, that meanwhile existing agreements must
remain in force, and that Member States may need to negotiate
updated or new ones.
1.3 Additionally, in implementing the results of any
such negotiations, the Commission wants all eligible EU airlines
to have an equal chance to apply for and take up the traffic rights
negotiated by Member States. The Communication includes an annex
setting out principles and procedures for the allocation of such
rights for use until a Regulation on the subject is agreed. It
has also proposed a Regulation which aims to ensure that bilateral
negotiations are conducted in such a way as to produce results
compatible with Community law, and that there is a proper information
exchange within the Community and non-discriminatory treatment
of European airlines by Member States.
The Government's view
1.4 The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr
John Spellar) tells us:
"In principle, the UK Government is open to giving the Commission
a mandate to negotiate an Open Aviation Area with the US, provided
it would not preclude Member States acting bilaterally if Community-level
talks failed to progress. But the UK, along with other Member
States, has indicated that a mandate must be part of a package
agreement encompassing a number of issues on which Member States
need to reach an understanding with the Commission in the light
of the Court verdict.
"By addressing the need of Member States to be able to negotiate
new bilateral agreements, or to renegotiate existing ones, in
conformity with Community law, the latest proposal by the Commission
contains the seeds of a compromise agreement. The proposed Regulation
is in principle acceptable to the UK Government, although we will
need to consider carefully a number of areas where the procedures
appear unduly cumbersome or impose limitations [on] Member States'
future freedom of action. Areas for discussion include the requirement
in Article 1 for Member States to communicate to the Commission
their intention to negotiate with a bilateral partner at least
one month before making contact with that country. I consider
that this provision could disrupt normal business contact with
bilateral partners to an unacceptable degree. I am also concerned
about Article 4(2), which would give the Commission wide powers
to object to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement if it considered
it incompatible with Community law, and about Article 3, which
would preclude Member States agreeing limited designations.
"I also consider that it would be helpful if the Commission
offered up a standard Community designation clause which Member
States could use in their negotiations with their bilateral partners,
but the Commission has so far refused to do so. We will pursue
this point when negotiations in Working Group resume."
Conclusion
1.5 We note that the Government wants a Commission
negotiating mandate to be part of a package on a number of issues
arising from the judgement of the European Court of Justice, and
that, whilst it accepts in principle the draft Regulation, there
are a number of points of detail which the Government wishes to
see addressed. So we shall hold the document under scrutiny until
the Minister is able to report progress to us on both these matters.
1 
