Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-12-Speech-1-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030512.8.1-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the speakers for their words and their proposals. I would like to point out that, of the 31 amendments proposed by Parliament, there are 20 which we can accept, either totally or partially, because they improve or clarify the text and, specifically, those relating to producing evidence of insurance or those relating to overflights, as well as the amendment relating to third-country aircraft for example. Of these 20 which are acceptable, we can accept 15 in the exact form they have been presented and 5 with the appropriate modifications.
I must point out, however, ladies and gentlemen, that there are 10 which I cannot accept for the reasons I will now explain. For example, Amendment No 9, on state guarantees, because it would not be in line with our approach to state aid and because it would clearly distort competition, or Amendment No 12, on the validity of insurance, which is not legally viable since it could cancel out the insurance during a flight following events such as those which occurred on 11 September and it would therefore be impossible to guarantee its application. Amendments Nos 13 and 15, on the definition of short-term leasing, because they fall within the scope of other regulations which are not currently under review. Amendment No 18, which describes in detail the doubts over the effectiveness of cover, because it is too mandatory. Amendment No 25, which broadens the definition of the insurer, because it would unfairly discriminate against third-country insurers and would violate the Community's international obligations in relation to financial services. Amendments Nos 26 and 28, which extend the application of civil liability and liability for passengers to air operators, because they could give rise to problems in terms of legal interpretation and, on an issue of this nature, as Mr Ortuondo quite rightly pointed out, it is essential that we have the greatest possible clarity in order to prevent contradictory interpretations. Amendment No 27 because it introduces maximum bands rather than minimum insurance sums. Amendment No 29, in which the Commission is urged to harmonise the legislation on insurance at airports, because the need for obligatory insurance requirements to cover third-party damages has not been approved. And Amendment No 30 is not acceptable because the person responsible is often not the person subject to obligatory insurance.
I would like to point out that we are talking about thresholds which are lower than those currently proposed by the market and that, since 9 September 2001, the costs of insurance have been decreasing steadily, although it is true – and Mr Nicholson was right about this – that the problem is raised by small companies, with which there is a case-by-case negotiation.
Mr Vermeer spoke of the issue of open skies. In fact, behind all of this there are also problems relating to unfair competition, above all on long routes on which European, American and other third-country companies compete. The honourable Member is well aware that the Commission is trying to achieve a mandate for negotiation with the United States and with other third countries, which allows, on the one hand, the room for flexibility that countries require when negotiating new agreements with third countries, which are not always entirely in the Community interest, which only affect or interest certain specific countries for special reasons, but at the same time ensures that the Community has responsibility and negotiating powers in the final instance. I would like to say to the honourable Members that the United States, for example, has clearly expressed its willingness to begin these negotiations in the coming months, if we have a Commission mandate in this regard.
I would also like to point out, with regard to flights, that the 1944 Chicago Convention and the 1994 Transit Agreement, in its Article 5, explicitly allow conditions to be imposed on overflights, not only with regard to the payment of certain types of charge, but also with regard to the obligatory nature of certain types of insurance. These international agreements therefore clearly allow cover of overflights.
With regard to the issue of the impact assessment – and I will end here, Mr President – we have commissioned an impact study with regard to third countries. We are working on this at the moment. With regard to European companies, we believe that we already have the necessary experience and knowledge.
In any event, I hope that, during the coming debates, we can bring our positions closer together and achieve a result which clarifies and establishes an appropriate level of guarantee for everybody and which restores and increases confidence in this type of transport, which is what we are all striving for"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples