# CE2004078EN.01072401.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/724 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/724

---

(2004/C 78 E/0774)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1764/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject:   Arms transport and export bans

Subject:

Most EU countries have rules on the export of arms by their own firms, but there are practically no restrictions on the transport of arms. It often happens, for example, that armaments are transported from EU countries in contravention of the individual EU countries' export bans.

That being so, the possibility cannot be ruled out of terrorist organisations being able to transport by sea, legally and without great difficulties, armaments purchased from private arms dealers.

It becomes quite grotesque when EU-registered ships freely ship armaments from non-EU countries to regimes on which the EU has imposed an arms embargo. In this way, Danish vessels have transported heavy armaments from Poland to Sudan without infringing the EU embargo.

In the light of the above, can the Commission state whether EU rules will be introduced subjecting sea transport to the same conditions which apply to export activities, so that prior approval has to be given before the vessel sails)?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

(17 July 2003)

Member States have up to now, on the basis of Article 296 of the EC Treaty exempted production and trade in arms, munition and war material for specifically military purposes from the scope of application of treaty rules. Trade in military weapons is currently dealt with in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), to which the Commission is fully associated.

The Commission possesses no enforceable legal instrument to monitor the export of war armaments. Responsibility for the licensing of military weapons exports belongs to the governments of the Member States. The main instruments utilised by the Union in this field are the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports (1) adopted in 1998 and the Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP on small arms and light weapons.

1

The Code lays down a series of criteria on the basis of which all decisions relating to arms exports are taken and provides a framework within which individual arms transfers can be discussed. While such criteria give guidance on a common basis, it is made clear that the ultimate responsibility for arms exports belongs to national governments. In its first four years of operation the Code has increased mutual understanding of Member States policies, established an efficient consultation mechanism and encouraged dialogue on the implementation of its provisions. In particular Member States have actively participated in the new system of denial notification and have striven to increase transparency in arms export control, also with the publication of the Annual Report.

Most recently Common Position 2003/468/CFSP on arms brokering has been adopted whose main objective is to control arms brokering in order to avoid circumvention on the United Nations, the European Union or the Organisation for Security and Cooperation embargoes on arms exports as well as the criteria of the Code. Member States will take all the necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within their territory; they are also encouraged to consider controlling brokering activities outside their territory carried out by brokers of their nationality resident or established in their territory. While this Common Position represents an improvement, it is undeniable that there are grounds for continued strengthening of the Code and its implementation. The Commission supports making the Code legally binding for Member States.

Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP does not distinguish between legally and illegally transferred weapons. Among others it provides for financial and technical assistance to non-African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, international organisations, programmes, agencies and regional arrangements for these purposes. Such assistance draws exclusively on CFSP funds. Assistance to ACP States falls under the rules and criteria established by the Cotonou Agreement. A number of Community-supported projects in both categories are currently under way.

---

(1)  http://projects.sipri.se/expcon/eucode.htm

1

---