Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.6.2-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first of all like to thank the shadow rapporteurs of the other groups for their good cooperation. Although we did not see eye to eye in every respect, I do think we managed to agree on the essence, and we will in that way help bring about a European strategy on a subject that is only set to increase in importance in the next few years.
As you know, this discussion was sparked by the famous 2002 open skies judgment by the Court of Justice, from which it was evident that the European Community has exclusive competence in international airline services, more specifically automated booking systems, intra-Community ticket prices and the distribution of slots or landing rights. All existing bilateral aviation agreements between the Member States and third countries must be brought into line with the judgment, with the consequence that no fewer than 2 000 aviation agreements across the entire Union are up for review.
There are two ways of going about this. Either the Member States take it upon themselves to hold bilateral negotiations with third countries in order to bring their bilateral agreements into line with Community law (58 agreements were harmonised in this way), or negotiations are held at Community level under the so-called horizontal mandate. So far, 22 countries have already accepted horizontal agreements with the Community, as a result of which 327 bilateral agreements have been adapted. This brings the total to 385 agreements, which means that there is still a long way to go before all 2 000 agreements are amended.
I therefore make a case in my report for bringing all bilateral agreements into line with the open skies judgments as soon as possible in order to avoid legal uncertainty. I personally prefer Community agreements, since one set of negotiations is enough to replace all existing bilateral agreements with a particular country in one fell swoop. After all, the European Community can throw far more weight into the balance during negotiations than can, for example, a Member State on its own, but this does require common, cohesive vision.
I would stress that we should conclude agreements with our key partners and up-and-coming countries, such as China, the United States and Russia, as soon as possible, whilst not forgetting our immediate neighbours. That is important for economic reasons, as well as political reasons in terms of aviation, such as safety and security, and that is why I have tabled an amendment on this very topic in readiness for today’s vote.
When Community agreements are concluded, it is crucial that the European Community should consider three major factors. Firstly, the agreements must be balanced, and equivalent access to each other’s markets is important. This means that aspects such as landing rights, rights to cabotage, equal establishment and ownership rights, as well as state aid must be taken into account. I tabled an amendment before today’s sitting to ensure that the issue of state aid will be added to the list. That is not unimportant in view of the tougher security measures that were imposed on all airline companies in the United States following 11 September, with the US Government providing funding for US airline companies but not for the others, which amounts to distortion of competition.
Secondly, my report underlines the fact that the opening up of markets should always be preceded by convergence of regulations, and the need for the degree of liberalisation to be coupled to fair and competitive conditions. The European Union is either working on, or already has, rules on social matters surrounding safety, security, the environment, state aid and competition. It is unacceptable that these high standards should be eroded by the advent of market operators bound by less stringent rules. Certainly in open skies agreements, where it would be possible for airline companies of the European Union and third countries to have unrestricted access to each other’s markets, it is essential that there is a level playing field between the legislation of both parties. Otherwise, we could end up with distortion of competition and there is also the risk of relocation, as a result of which European airline companies would move to states with less clear-cut rules. That is why I have tabled an amendment to include the convergence of regulations surrounding security, state support and competition in my report, so that regulatory convergence will take place in those areas too. If it proves impossible to reach an open skies agreement, the Commission would then be asked to develop fair and transparent mechanisms for dividing up traffic rights among the Member States.
Thirdly and lastly, the Commission should also consult and inform all parties involved in the aviation industry and the European Parliament during the negotiations about the many fresh aviation agreements which will be concluded between Europe and the rest of the world in the next few years.
These three important factors are also reflected in Mr Zīle’s report with regard to Russia and China. Here too, the principle of reciprocity must apply. The high levies which Russia demands for flying over Siberia must be abolished. Asia, after all, is gaining in importance, and the shortest route to fly to it is still via the Russian Federation. Mr Zīle, therefore, also deserves all our support."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples