Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-04-04-Speech-3-238"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010404.8.3-238"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, the liability rules with regard to international air transport have hitherto mainly been based on the Warsaw Convention dating back to 1929. These limits are now far too low. The majority of international air carriers recognise this and signed a voluntary contract in 1995 in which they dissociate themselves from random liability limits. This formed the inspiration for the original (EC) Regulation No 2027/97. This regulation was used to step up the pressure on the international community to sign the Montreal Convention in 1999, as a result of which the new all-encompassing worldwide system for liability became an established fact. Thanks to the Montreal Convention, which is being transposed into European legislation by the present regulation, a modernised and uniform framework is being set up. This is a considerable improvement on the current international system.
I would like to highlight six points this evening. First of all, I back the Commission’s aim, in the framework of the development of a charter for air passengers, to protect passengers’ rights and to inform them of these rights. The present transport conditions in the aviation industry are restrictive and overlook the statutory rights of the passengers. Competition in this sector is fierce, but success and profitable operations must be based on more and better, not worse, customer service. Some airline companies have complained to me about the fact that information to passengers involves a great deal of red tape. You will understand that I do not share their views. The cost and effort involved in informing passengers are considerably less than the efforts which the airline companies make to inform potential customers of new services they are offering.
Secondly, the Member States have agreed that the Community itself is signatory to the Montreal Convention. I consider this a considerable step towards plugging the gap in the Union’s common transport policy, since we are thus recognising the fact that there is joint authority in the field of international aviation matters.
Thirdly, there was some concern as to the implications of the case which IATA brought to the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom against the British government regarding the way in which it implemented Regulation No 2027/97. The court concluded that the regulation remained valid, but that it contained a number of elements which were incompatible with the obligations which Member States had entered into on account of previous pledges, in accordance with international conventions. In my opinion, this objection is no longer well-founded since the regulation has been amended and brought completely into line with the new international system of liability.
Fourthly, upon drafting this report and the eighteen amendments which I recommended to the committee, I sought legal advice from various lawyers and legal experts in order to preclude any doubt which may arise in future in the legal sphere. At the same time, I very much tried to retain the right of passengers to information. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism adopted the amendments by general vote. These amendments can roughly be divided into three categories. First of all, the improvement of the committee text; secondly a simplification of the proposal and the guarantee of complete consistency with the Montreal Convention and, thirdly, a reinforcement of the provisions with regard to information to passengers.
Our committee particularly recommends that Parliament should add an annex to the regulation, containing the text of the information notice as required pursuant to Article 6(2). That is new. In that way, airline companies will be able to offer this information in a uniform manner. The text clearly outlines the provisions of the regulation and is devoid of any legal jargon. Once this regulation enters into force – which I hope will be the case by the end of next year – coinciding with the expected entry into effect of the Montreal Convention – all airline companies in the European Union will then be required to make this information available to their passengers. The text will then be drafted in an unambiguous and understandable language which is clear to the consumer. Airline companies from non-EU countries will nonetheless be required to produce something similar covering the liability system which they operate.
Considering the matter once more, I believe that the Union has the right to ask all carriers which sell tickets in the EU to provide their passengers with information on their rights to damages, not only with a view to acquainting the passengers with their rights, but also to allowing passengers to take out additional insurance, should this appear necessary.
I have the following comment to make to the Commission with regard to Amendment No 9 to Article 3. In the Commission proposal, reference is made to a number of articles from the Montreal Convention. However, various relevant articles were missing. The lawyers in the court room will love this. The Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism and I are in favour of simplifying the text, thus avoiding any risk of omission. Furthermore, by ratifying the Montreal Convention, the Commission recognises the Union’s authority in this matter.
Finally, I would like to recommend all eighteen amendments. I cannot recommend Amendments Nos 19 and 20, because they imply that third countries need not meet the obligation to inform passengers, even if they buy tickets in the European Union."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples