52003SC0363

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network

2001/0060 (COD) 2001/0235 (COD) 2001/0236 (COD) 2001/0237 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 251 (2) of the EC Treaty concerning the common position of the Council on the adoption of a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network

1. Procedure

On 10 October 2001 the Commission submitted four legislative proposals for the creation of the Single European Sky [1] with a view to their adoption under the codecision procedure provided for in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. These proposals were forwarded to the European Parliament and the Council on 11 October 2001.

[1] Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (COM(2001) 123 final/2 of 30/11/2001 - 2001/0060 (COD).

On 15 May 2002 the Committee of the Regions delivered a favourable opinion.

On 17 July 2002 the European Economic and Social Committee delivered a favourable opinion.

On 3 September 2002 the European Parliament gave a favourable opinion subject to amendment at its first reading.

On 26 November 2002 the Commission adopted an amended proposal COM(2002) 658 final, which was forwarded to the Council on 28 November 2002.

On 18 March 2003 the Council unanimously adopted it common position.

2. Objectives of the Commission's proposals

The air traffic control system in the Community operates close to its capacity limits. It is therefore a source of delays in air traffic. Delays make air transport unpredictable for air passengers and operators and impose large economic costs on carriers and consumers. The lack of capacity of the air traffic control system also endangers the functioning of the internal market. The main origin of this lack is the fragmentation of the Air Traffic Management (ATM) system which also results in high co-ordination costs. There is consequently a need to improve the interoperability of the system among various Member States.

To remedy these deficiencies, the Commission adopted in October 2001 a legislative package with the objective of achieving the goal of a Single European Sky. The objectives of the proposed legislation are:

- to improve and reinforce safety,

- to achieved more effective and integrated air navigation services based on demand driven service provision,

- to restructure European airspace as a function of traffic flow, rather than according to national borders,

- to create additional capacity and to increase the overall efficiency of the ATM system.

The Commission's legislative package comprises four proposals for regulation covering the essential elements for a seamless ATM system.

2.1 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (2001/0060 (COD))

This proposal for a regulation fixes the end of 2004 as the deadline for the creation of the Single European Sky. It proposes an institutional framework for the creation of the Single European Sky. According to this framework the Community regulates, Eurocontrol, where appropriate, prepares draft measures with a view to being incorporated into Community law, and Member States enforce the rules without prejudice to the role of the Commission as the guardian of the Treaty. This regulation also proposes to significantly enhance international co-ordination. The institutional set up aims at removing the administrative and organisational bottlenecks in the area of decision-making and enforcement processes in ATM.

2.2 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (2001/0235 (COD))

This proposal for a regulation aims to promote the safe and efficient provision of air navigation services in a seamless and interoperable manner across the Community. It ensures a functional separation between national supervisory authorities and air navigation service providers. This separation is compatible with both public and private means of ownership and service provision - whichever model is adopted by individual Member States. Eurocontrol safety requirements would be transposed into Community rules. The regulation introduces a certification scheme for air navigation services setting the harmonised requirements for their provision at Community level. Member States would retain their power to designate service providers operating under monopoly conditions (air traffic control services). The regulation also allows the revision of the current charging system to encourage the efficient use and the efficient provision of ATM infrastructure.

2.3 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky (2001/0236 (COD))

This proposal for a regulation would create a Community airspace that behaves as a single operating continuum, where common procedures for the design, planning and management of airspace ensure the safe performance of the entire air traffic management network. The regulation defines the principles for the organisation and use of the airspace, for the co-ordination between civil and military and for the management of air traffic flows. Its most significant actions would be the creation of a European Upper Information Region, replacing the existing national zones, and the reconfiguration of airspace into functional airspace blocks of adequate size, based on safety and efficiency criteria, regardless of national boundaries.

2.4 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (2001/0237 (COD))

This proposal for a regulation defines the conditions necessary to ensure interoperability in the Community between the different systems and components of the air traffic management network and of their upgrading to new technologies, as appropriate. A key pillar of this regulation is the definition and management of the European ATM standardisation processes, including the procedures for conformity assessment, in line with the Community policies in this field.

3. Comments on the Common Position

The references between square brackets in the comments are to recitals and articles of the common position.

3.1 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the framework for the creation of the Single European Sky (2001/0060 (COD))

3.1.1 General comments

The Council introduced some general changes relative to the Commission's proposal. These changes are both of form and substance. Even though the Council took a more conservative approach to reflect Member States' prerogatives under national defence policies and international obligations, these changes are acceptable because they would ensure the aims of the regulation were met.

The first change concerns the scope of the regulation (Article [1]). At its first reading the Parliament recommended to subordinate the provisions of the regulation to Member States obligations, stemming from the ICAO Convention (amendment 1) and national defence and security policies (amendment 8). The Commission considered this issue already adequately covered in its proposal. The Council adopted provisions to reflect the obligations stemming from the 1944 Chicago Convention, with regard to sovereignty (Article [1(2)]) and the rights and obligations of the Member States (Article [1(3)]). The Commission clarified in a unilateral statement that Article [1(3)] could only apply in respect of Member States' obligations vis-à-vis third countries [2]. The common position also clarified military implications by reaffirming the civil scope of the regulation (Article [1(2)]) and detailing the safeguard clause (Article [11]), thus detailing the scope for civil and military co-operation under the Single European Sky. Furthermore, the Council, conscious of the need to support the implementation of the Single European Sky taking full account of military requirements, submitted a general statement on the need for multinational co-operation in this field [3]. The Gibraltar clause was also introduced (Article [1(4) and (5)]).

[2] Unilateral declaration by the Commission on Article [1(3)]:

[3] Statement by Member States on military issues related to the Single European Sky:

Second, the Council decided to remove the articles summarising the general criteria for the measures to be taken in the different fields of action. This is acceptable since these criteria summarise the content of the specific regulations that are adopted at the same time. This change makes amendments 2 and 13 of the Parliament redundant. The common position also groups together all definitions in the four regulations under a single article in this regulation (Article [2]).

Thirdly, the Council introduced three articles concerning horizontal issues which the Commission addressed in the specific regulations of its proposals, namely the role of national supervisory authorities (Article [4]), the relations with Eurocontrol (Article [7]) and the consultation of stakeholders (Article [8]). The common position also shifts from the specific regulation to this framework regulation the provisions on the procedures of the Single Sky Committee (Article [5(2) and (3)]).

With regard to the relations between the Community and Eurocontrol, the Parliament considered the need to reinforce the level of the co-operation between the two organisations in the creation of the Single European Sky. A new situation intervened in October 2002 with the signing of the accession protocol of the Community to this organisation. The Council adopted a provision, laying down the practical arrangements for involving Eurocontrol in the legislative work. While reaffirming its right of initiative (the Commission would make a unilateral statement to this end [4]), the Commission believes that this approach coupled with the membership of the Community would be acceptable. Under this approach, Eurocontrol would exercise its own regulatory powers under the revised Convention and the Community would participate in this exercise in its capacity of contracting party to Eurocontrol. The allocation of tasks concerning the technical preparation of Community rules and responsibility for implementing them would be defined on the basis of Article [7]. The necessary administrative arrangements will be laid down in an administrative agreement between the Commission and Eurocontrol which is close to finalisation.

[4] Unilateral statement by the Commission on Article [7]:

With regard to the consultation of stakeholders, the Parliament considered the need for an industry advisory group having an institutional role. The Commission agreed with the principle of full consultation of industry but it remained opposed to the creation of a body, which would duplicate existing arrangements. The Council adopted obligations for effective consultation mechanisms and on the scope of such consultation.

3.1.2 Detailed comments

3.1.2.1 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 3 part. Recital [3] refers to the duty of general interest in the provision of air navigation services.

Amendment 5 part. Recital [16] includes the term "should" with regard to the consultation of social partners.

Amendments 6 and 28 part. Article [8] introduces an obligation to rely upon "effective consultation mechanisms". This consultation covers the development and introduction of new concepts and technologies.

Amendment 7. In Recital [15], the Council refers to "economic and social stakeholders".

Amendment 8. Article [1(2)] introduces the principle of consistency with national defence needs.

Amendment 9. Following the signature of the protocol of accession of the Community to the Eurocontrol revised Convention on 8 October 2002, the Community is acting as a member of this organisation on a provisional basis, pending the entry into force of such protocol. This will ensure regulatory synergies and consistent approaches between the two organisations. With regard to the need to avoid duplication, Article [7] supports the principle of the highest level of co-operation between the Commission and Eurocontrol with a view to the adoption of implementing rules, building on the experience of mandating procedures gained in other sectors (telecommunications).

Amendment 10 part. Article [1(1)] states the objective to set up the regulatory framework of the Single European Sky by 31 December 2004.

Amendment 26. The common position refers in Article [5] to the adoption of the rules of procedures of the Single Sky Committee.

Amendment 31. Article [9] provides involvement of Eurocontrol in the process of performance review and includes the dissemination of best practices as a key objective.

Amendment 33. Article [11] lists all situations to be safeguarded by reason of security and defence policy interests, including the conduct of military operations.

3.1.2.2 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and not incorporated in the common position

Amendments 4 and 30. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce a sanctioning mechanism against the operators that breach the rules.

Amendment 11. With regard to definitions, the common position relies on the ICAO terminology for reasons of consistency.

Amendment 12. The purpose of this amendment is to affirm the role of States in deciding the statute and structure of service providers.

Amendments 14 to 23 except 19. The Council deleted the recitals and articles referring to the general criteria in each specific fields of action. These amendments related to such articles.

Amendment 32. This amendment specifies the content of evaluation reports.

3.1.2.3 Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 19. The Council deleted the recitals and articles referring to the general criteria in each specific fields of action. This amendment related to such articles.

Amendments 24 and 27. These amendments do not comply with the drafting rules adopted to implement the Decision concerning comitology (Decision of the Council 1999/468/EC).

Amendment 29. This amendment puts an obligation on the Commission to extend the Single European Sky to third countries.

Amendment 34. The amendment states the obligations of Member States stemming from existing international treaties.

3.2 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision of air navigation services in the Single European Sky (2001/0235 (COD))

3.2.1 General comments

A general recommendation of the Parliament was to reinforce the safety aspects of this Regulation. The Commission accepted this suggestion in its amended proposal. The Council also reviewed the regulation in the light of the priority of safety over other aspects such as capacity and efficiency. Search and rescue services were excluded from the scope of the regulation given their military nature in most Member States. The Council made other changes as follows.

A first change concerns a more detailed specification of the role of national supervisory authorities in respect of regional service providers or providers of services in Member States other than those where such providers are established (Article [2(3) and (4)]). The Council adopted a simpler solution with regard to recognised organisation (Article [3]) by avoiding to confer powers on the Commission to further specify procedures and requirements.

The Council decided to remove the provision on licensing and training of controllers by reason of its declaratory nature. The Commission accepted this view but it tabled a statement, which reflects its objectives in this field as stated in its proposal [5]. The Commission considers human factors to be of high importance in the implementation of the Single European Sky. This is due to the need to provide for adequate levels of highly qualified staff to guarantee safe and efficient operations and to develop the social dimension of the Single European Sky through social dialogue.

[5] Unilateral declaration by the Commission:

Another change regards the rules for the provision of air navigation services and the verification of conformity of service providers. The notion of common requirements (Article [5]) and certification (Article [6]) replaced the notion of authorisation, which was in the Commission's proposal. This is not a change of substance but rather a stronger emphasis on the public interests requirements as the Parliament recommended. The Commission also clarified in a unilateral statement the way in which it intends to develop common requirements [6]. The common position also includes an exemption of military providers involved in civil operations of reduced size from the application of the certification scheme (Article [6(5)]).

[6] Unilateral statements by the Commission on Article [5]:

With regard to the designation process, the Council affirmed the exclusive role of Member States (Article [7(3)]) in the selection of providers of air traffic services and this prerogative was also extended to the provision of meteorological services (Article [8]).

The Parliament recommended ensuring consistency between the proposed charging scheme and the Eurocontrol multilateral agreement on route charges. The Commission accepted this. The Council did follow the suggestion of the Parliament (Article [13]). Furthermore implementing rules in this field would be established by means of mandates to Eurocontrol. As to the establishment of the cost-base for charges, the common position removed the provisions on external costs. Finally, with regard to incentives in the charging schemes, their application would be a choice of individual Member States (Article [14(3)(e)]).

The changes made by the Council were broadly acceptable because they would ensure the objectives of the regulation were met. However, with regard to external costs, the Commission favours their explicit inclusion in the charging scheme, as this would be consistent with the objective of pursuing the introduction of environmental levies within ICAO and with the Council's and European Parliament's decision in the 6th Environment Action Programme [7] to "...[identify and undertake] specific actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from aviation if no such action is agreed within [ICAO] by 2002". While preferring explicit reference to external costs in the cost-base (Article [14(2)]), the Commission considers that the current provisions, namely Article [14(3)(e)], still implicitly allow modulation of air navigation charges to promote environmental efficiency.

[7] Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1-15.

3.2.2 Detailed comments

3.2.2.1 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 1. Recital [2] refers to the need to "preserve public interest requirements, most notably in terms of safety".

Amendments 2, 15 and 34 part. Recital [7] specifies that recognised organisations should be technically experienced.

Amendments 6 and 18 part. Article [1(e)] in Annex [II] specifies that certification should be granted with reference to a specific period to be defined by national supervisory authorities.

Amendments 7 and 20. Recital [10] states the need for compatibility with international standards.

Amendments 8 and 9. In recital [12 and 19] the reference to safety has been added.

Amendment 11. The amendment is reflected in recital [19] of the framework regulation.

Amendments 19 and 21. The amendment is reflected in Article [5] of the regulation.

Amendment 23. Article [10] provides obligation to establish written agreements between civil and military authorities.

Amendment 25. Article [12(1)] states the obligation to use data only for operational purposes.

Amendment 28. Under Article [13] and [14(3)], the consistency of the charging schemes with the Eurocontrol multilateral agreement on route charges is introduced.

Amendment 29 part. Article [14(3)] establishes the responsibility of Member States for setting charges concerning all air navigation services.

Amendment 30 part. In Article [14(3)(e)] the reference to safety has been added. The notion of cross-subsidies is now in Article [14(2)(d)], which partly reflects the amendment.

Amendment 32 part. The Council dealt with the horizontal issue of the consultation of stakeholders in the framework regulation (see paragraph 3.1.1).

Amendment 33. Annex [I] provides on the financial and organisation independence of recognised organisations.

Amendment 35. This issue will be elaborated on the basis of Article [5] of the regulation.

3.2.2.2 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and not incorporated in the common position

Amendment 3. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce a recital concerning the future role and responsibilities of the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Amendments 4, 5 and 16. The Council deleted the recital and the article concerning licensing and training of controllers.

Amendment 10. This amendment supports the establishment of financial reserves to cope with sudden downturns of air traffic which cause immediate rises in charges.

Amendment 17. This amendment defines one of the objectives of the certification system, that is enabling co-operation between service providers.

Amendment 22. The Council deleted the provision on the grand-father clause for incumbent service providers.

Amendment 24. The Council deleted the paragraph of the article concerning the information to the Commission on the arrangements of Member States for civil military co-operation.

Amendment 27. The purpose of this amendment is to further specify conditions for the exchange of operational data.

Amendment 31. The relevant article has been moved to the framework regulation.

3.2.2.3 Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 12. The term "ancillary services" is no longer used in the common position.

Amendment 13. This amendment introduces the principle of a strict (structural) separation between national supervisory authorities and air navigation service providers.

Amendment 14. This amendment introduces an appeals mechanism in the case of dispute between airspace users and Member States.

Amendment 26. This amendment establishes the principle of commercial value of operational data.

Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 99. The purpose of these amendments is to affirm the principle of the integrity of air navigation services, the need to have them provided within a single organisation.

3.3 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the organisation and use of the airspace in the Single European Sky (2001/0236 (COD))

3.3.1 General comments

The Council made some general changes relative to the Commission's proposal. The Commission could accept these changes. However, it regrets that some of them were introduced, in particular those related to the functional airspace blocks, because they reduce the possibility for Community's institutions to intervene to guarantee effectiveness and consistency of the airspace organisation.

A first change concerns the scope of the regulation. This covers the airspace under the responsibility of Member States included in the ICAO European and African Regions (Article [1(3)]). In addition, Member States may decide the inclusion of other airspace under their responsibility, in particular that over the high seas where they provide air navigation services following the mandate of ICAO (Article [1(3)]).

The Council reviewed the process for the establishment of the European Upper Information Region (EUIR). It decided to bring in the procedure laid down in Article 300 of the Treaty due to the need to submit this undertaking to the ICAO decision-making process and the potential involvement of third countries (Article [3(1)]) [8]. The Council clarified that the establishment of the EUIR would not impact on the Member States' responsibilities towards ICAO (Article [3(4)]). The Council also preferred to make various actions in the regulation independent of the establishment of the EUIR.

[8] Joint statement by the Member States and the Commission on Article [3(1)]:

The common position does not contain a provision on direct routing as it is the case in the Commission's proposal. Such provision was deemed out-of-date given recent developments in Eurocontrol.

With regard to the creation of functional airspace blocks, the Parliament suggested an amendment aiming to introduce a dispute settlement mechanism in the case where Member States disagree on the definition of (cross-border) functional airspace blocks. The Commission rejected this amendment considering that such a definition would eventually occur within the comitology procedure. The Council felt that decisions in this field could not be imposed on individual States. Therefore it limited the use of the comitology procedure to the definition of general principles (Article [5(3)]) and only allowed a consultative role for the Commission (Article [5(4)]).

The Council amended the provision on civil military co-ordination to cover only the application of the concept of the Flexible Use of Airspace (Article [7]). This move was justified by its desire to limit the potential interference of the regulation in the military area, in accordance with the legal basis of the regulation (common transport policy).

The common position departed from the Commission's proposal with regard to the extension of the scope of this regulation to the lower airspace. It made this extension subject to the progress achieved in the upper airspace (Article [10]).

The Parliament put forward amendments (56, 60 and 63) to introduce references to the role of the Eurocontrol organisation in the development of future measures. The Commission rejected these amendments as inappropriate for a Community act. The common position followed the position of the Parliament in the sense that all implementing rules of this regulation would be established by means of mandates to Eurocontrol (Article [7] of the framework regulation).

3.3.2 Detailed comments

3.3.2.1 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 36. Recital [8] refers to the European scale.

Amendment 37. Article [5(3)] provides the involvement of Eurocontrol in the planning process of functional airspace blocks.

Amendment 41 part. In recital [17] the reference to the role of Eurocontrol in flow management is introduced.

Amendment 47 part. In Article [2] the definition of the division level is subject to variations justified by operational requirements.

Amendment 49. Article [1] provides due account of the regional agreements under ICAO.

Amendments 52 and 53. In Article [5(2)(a)] the need for a safety case is introduced.

Amendment 54. In Article [5(2)(d)] the concept of an optimised co-ordination is introduced.

Amendment 64 part. The Council dealt with the horizontal issue of the consultation of stakeholders in the framework regulation (see paragraph 3.1.1).

3.3.2.2 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and not incorporated in the common position

Amendment 38. This amendment reinforces the reference to operational conditions.

Amendments 39, 43 and 55. The Council deleted the provision on direct routing.

Amendment 40. This amendment covers the need for intergovernmental co-operation on military matters.

Amendment 42. The Council deleted the definition referred to in this amendment.

Amendments 44 and 45. With regard to definitions, the common position relies on the ICAO terminology for reasons of consistency.

Amendment 48. This amendment fixes a term of five years for the extension of the concept of the single Flight information region to the lower airspace.

Amendment 62. This amendment reinforces the reference to safe and orderly flow of traffic.

3.3.2.3 Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 46. This amendment establishes a deadline for the creation of the European Upper Flight Information Region (EUIR).

Amendment 50. This amendment specifies national borders in horizontal and vertical terms.

Amendment 51. This amendment aims at introducing a dispute settlement mechanism in the case where Member States disagree on the definition of (cross-border) functional airspace blocks.

Amendments 57 and 59. These amendments reinforce the provisions concerning civil-military co-operation.

Amendment 58. This amendment makes the concept of the flexible use of airspace subject to air traffic flow management rules.

Amendment 61. This amendment provides on the consistency of flow management rules with the Eurocontrol Convention.

3.4 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the European Air Traffic Management network (2001/0237 (COD))

3.4.1 General comments

The Council made no substantial changes relative to the Commission's proposal. Thus the Commission can fully support the common position with regard to this regulation.

The common position introduced more detailed provisions concerning transitional arrangements. This aimed to safeguard investments made by Member States in the period before the entry into force of the regulation.

From the point of view of the form, the common position reduces the number of articles. The provisions of chapter II and III of the Commission's proposals were merged under a single chapter.

As in the case of the other specific regulations, the Council considered that the issue of consultation of stakeholders was of horizontal nature and, as such, more appropriate to be dealt with in the framework regulation (see paragraph 3.1.1).

Finally, the Council decided to establish an ad-hoc group of experts to review the provisions of the various Annexes to the regulation. This work has not led to major changes but rather to refinements on the basis of the technical and operational experience.

3.4.2 Detailed comments

3.4.2.1 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 65. The common position modifies the content of recital [7] to avoid misunderstanding that service providers could have discretion in applying Community specifications.

Amendment 67 part. Article [1(3)] states the need to take full account of international standards which promote global interoperability.

Amendment 68. Article [3(4)] refers to the need to agree on and maintain a high level of safety.

Amendment 69 part. Article [3(3)(e)] specifies the conditions of implementation, including the date of compliance.

Amendment 70. Article [7] contains drafting improvements as recommended by the amendment.

Amendments 71, 72 and 73 part. The Council dealt with the horizontal issue of the consultation of stakeholders in the framework regulation (see paragraph 3.1.1). In such regulation reference is made to professional associations and airspace users.

3.4.2.2 Amendments of the European Parliament accepted by the Commission and not incorporated in the common position

Amendment 74. This amendment reinforces the reference to safety in the environmental aspects.

Amendment 76. This amendment stresses the need for the systematic analysis of incidents.

3.4.2.3 Amendments of the European Parliament rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in full or in part in the common position

Amendment 66. This amendment makes reference to the European Aviation Safety Agency.

Amendment 75. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the involvement of system users, namely air traffic controllers, in the definition of systems.

Amendments 77, 78 and 79. The Commission judged these amendments were not necessary since they replicated essential requirements already provided for in Annex [II].

4. Conclusions

The Commission would have preferred a stronger commitment by the Council on the issue of promoting environmentally efficient use of airspace (explicit inclusion of external costs in the charging scheme). Moreover, it is important to improve the provisions on the reorganisation of airspace, in particular on the creation of functional airspace blocks. This represents a key step to remove the current fragmentation and improve the overall efficiency of the Community system. In the light of the changes made in the common position, the Commission recognised that the reorganisation of the airspace would depend on actions of individual Member States, concerning the management of their airspace, and of the Community institutions, mainly with a view to harmonising the requirements governing such a reorganisation. The Council proposed this dual approach to preserve national sovereign rights making it clear that, under the present circumstances, this would be the only feasible way forward. On balance, the Commission considers that the common position adopted on 18 March 2003 does not substantially alter the main objectives and the approach of its proposals and so can support it.