9 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 a 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
|
| Department | Transport |
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter and SEM of 14 May 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xviii (2002-03), paragraph 1 (9 April 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | 5-6 June 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
9.1 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 Commissions favour on certain key
issues affecting the ability of Member States to negotiate on
their own behalf with third countries.[47]
A mandate for the Commission to negotiate a Community-level agreement
with the USA is a central element in discussions about the consequences
of the Court ruling. 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 Courts decision.
9.2 The Commission Communication deals with the issue of nationality
clauses in bilateral air service agreements, 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. 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. 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.
9.3 When we looked at this document on 9 April 2003[48]
we noted that the Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr
John Spellar) had told us that the Government wanted 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 accepted in principle the draft Regulation, there
were a number points of detail which the Government wished to
see addressed. We said we would hold the document under scrutiny
until the Minister was able to report further.
The Minister's letter and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum
9.4 In his supplementary Explanatory Memorandum the Minister tells
us there has been progress in continuing negotiations on these
matters. He reminds us that the Government is open to giving
the Commission a negotiating mandate for an Open Aviation Area
agreement with the USA, as long as Member States are not precluded
from acting bilaterally if Community-level talks fail to progress.
But the Government, along with other Member States, insists 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. He goes on to say:
"The Greek Presidency is working towards agreement at the
June Council on a package aimed at meeting the requirements of
Member States and the Commission. The technical aspects of mandates
for the Commission to negotiate an Open Aviation Area agreement
with the US, and to seek to renegotiate existing "national"
designation clauses on behalf of Member States, are close to finalisation.
As to the proposed Regulation on the negotiation and implementation
of air services agreements with third countries, good progress
has been made in Council Working Group discussions since the previous
EM was submitted, and the UK now has only two substantive areas
of outstanding concern.
"Most importantly, we need to be quite clear that where a
third country refuses to accept Community rather than national
designation this will not prevent a Member State modifying or
updating its bilateral. We cannot accept a situation in which
bilateral entitlements are frozen to the detriment of EU passengers
and EU operators. The arrangements for notifying the Commission
of developments with third countries need to give Member States
the flexibility to continue managing and improving their bilateral
agreements.
"The Court ruling also raised particular difficulties relating
to safety. A third country which accepts Community designation
will, understandably, want to be assured that the designating
Member State can provide adequate assurances on the safety of
all the airlines it designates. Without being able to give such
assurances Member States or the Commission would find it more
difficult to persuade third countries to accept Community designation."
9.5 In his letter the Minister says on these two issues "We
are also, I hope, moving towards agreement on the proposed Regulation,
subject to the resolution of certain outstanding issues as set
out in the [supplementary] EM."
Conclusion
9.6 We are pleased that there has been significant progress
towards a satisfactory package on this matter. We understand that,
since the Minister wrote to update us, there has been further
progress concerning the need to allow Member States to modify
their bilateral agreements if the Commission's negotiations fail.
We are now content to clear the document.
47 Cases C-466/98 Commission v United Kingdom and others,
judgment of 5 November 2002. Back
48
See headnote. Back
| 
