Replacing a thesis cannot change the facts

The recent controversy surrounding the regulatory framework governing aircraft maintenance services in Serbia has sparked significant public debate, particularly following media reports and statements from aviation authorities. At the heart of this issue lies a clarification about the legal obligations under both European and Serbian national regulations concerning the provision of ground handling services. The central claim being made is that the dispute was not about the safety of flights or the EASA Part-145 approval, but rather about compliance with national laws regarding the provision of these specific services.

It has been clearly established that the organizations involved did possess the necessary EASA Part-145 approvals, and there has been no dispute over the airworthiness of the aircraft or the safety of the flights themselves. These were not subjects of the regulatory proceedings. Instead, the focus was solely on whether the service providers met the conditions set forth by Serbian legislation for offering ground handling services. This distinction is crucial because it highlights the difference between international standards and national regulatory requirements.

European Union directives, specifically Directive 96/67/EC, classify aircraft maintenance as part of ground handling services. Article 14 grants member states the right to require authorization for providing such services, while Article 19 explicitly mandates that service providers must comply with the national laws of the country where they operate. Serbia has fully incorporated these provisions into its national legislation, which means that local service providers must adhere to these regulations when operating within the country.

The response from EASA, as published by the portal Aero.rs, indicated that additional EASA Part-145 approval from a third country is not required. However, EASA also emphasized that this does not exempt the maintenance organization from complying with all applicable national legal, operational, and administrative requirements of the country where the maintenance station is located. This point, which underscores the necessity of adhering to national regulations, appears to have been largely overlooked in subsequent media coverage.

Inspections conducted by regulatory authorities revealed that the first engaged service provider had its operations suspended after it was found non-compliant with Serbian regulations. Even after being given a 30-day period to rectify the situation, the provider failed to obtain the required permit and still lacks it today. Similarly, the second service provider was also found non-compliant upon engagement and was given a 30-day grace period before their operations were halted. Only after fulfilling all legally mandated conditions was a permit issued to them.

These findings underscore that obtaining a national permit is not merely a formality but a regulatory requirement grounded in both European and national legal frameworks. There is also a question raised about why a self-handling model, involving the use of licensed mechanics and ensuring all necessary equipment and facilities, was not employed from the outset. While this approach would be more costly, it would ensure full regulatory compliance without relying on external service providers.

A further concern is the perceived inconsistency in how regulations are interpreted and applied. When discussing amendments to the Regulation on Flight Authorization, certain media narratives suggested that the regulatory body aimed to drive Wizz Air out of the Serbian market. In contrast, when addressing the Regulation on Conditions for Providing Ground Handling Services, the same national regulatory framework is suddenly portrayed as irrelevant or unenforceable. If the right of Serbia to regulate flight authorizations is accepted, then the basis for challenging its authority to regulate ground handling services under EU Directive 96/67/EC becomes questionable.

This situation calls for a clear and consistent application of the law, ensuring that all stakeholders understand and respect the regulatory environment. It also raises important questions about the role of media in accurately representing complex regulatory issues and the potential impact of misinterpretations on public perception and industry practices. As the discussion continues, it remains essential to base decisions and interpretations strictly on verified facts and legal frameworks rather than subjective narratives or selective reporting.