Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2001:680
Date: 2001-12-13
Language of the case: English
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (1957)
Subject matter: Accession;Provisions governing the Institutions;Health and safety;Euratom matters
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Actions for annulment — Subject-matter — Partial annulment — Condition — 
Whether contested provisions can be severed — Declaration attached to the Council 
decision approving the accession of the European Atomic Energy Community to the 
Nuclear Safety Convention 
(Euratom Treaty, Art. 146) 
I - 11221 
SUMMARY — CASE C-29/99 
2. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Council decision approving the 
accession of the European Atomic Energy Community to an international agree­
ment — Absence in the Euratom Treaty of a procedure for seeking a preliminary 
opinion from the Court — Not relevant 
(Euratom Treaty, Art. 146) 
3. International agreements — Council Decision approving the accession of the Euro­
pean Atomic Energy Community to the Nuclear Safety Convention — Obligation for 
the Council to communicate a complete declaration of its competences 
(Euratom Treaty, Art. 101(2)) 
4. EAEC — Community competences in the area of nuclear safety — Definition on the 
basis of a distinction between protection of the health of the general public and the 
safety of sources of ionising radiation — Excluded 
5. EAEC — Health protection — Community competences in the fields covered by the 
Nuclear Safety Convention 
(Euratom Treaty, Arts 30 to 32, 33, second para., and 37) 
1. It follows from the Court's case-law 
that partial annulment of a decision is 
possible if the elements whose annul­
ment is sought may be severed from the 
remainder of the decision. 
As regards the declaration attached to 
the Council Decision approving the 
accession of the European Atomic 
Energy Community to the Nuclear 
Safety Convention, the elements whose 
omission would render it unlawful are 
not, by definition, set out therein and 
are accordingly separable from its 
provisions. The annulment of the third 
paragraph of that declaration for fail­
ure to refer to certain articles of the 
Convention would in no way affect the 
legal scope of the provisions on which 
the Council has already taken a view 
and therefore would not alter the 
substance of the contested decision. 
In those circumstances, the fact that the 
declaration is an integral part of the 
contested decision does not preclude 
annulment of that declaration in so far 
as it fails to refer to the Community's 
competences in the fields covered by 
the Convention. 
(see paras 45-47) 
I - 11222 
COMMISSION v COUNCIL 
2. The fact that the Euratom Treaty does 
not provide that the Court may rule by 
way of an opinion on the compatibility 
with that Treaty of international agree­
ments which the Community is plan­
ning to conclude does not preclude the 
Court from being asked to review the 
legality of an act approving a decision 
to accede to an international conven­
tion in an action for annulment under 
Article 146 of the Euratom Treaty. 
(see para. 54) 
3. The legal effect of approval by the 
Council of accession by the European 
Atomic Energy Community to an inter­
national convention, in accordance 
with the second pa rag raph of 
Article 101 of the Euratom Treaty, is 
to authorise the Commission to con­
clude that convention within the 
framework established by the Council 
decision. When it approves accession to 
an international convention without 
any reservation, the Council must 
respect the conditions for accession 
laid down by that convention, since 
an accession decision which did not 
comply with those conditions would be 
in breach of the Community's obli­
gations from the moment it entered 
into force. In addition, it follows from 
the duty of sincere cooperation 
between the institutions that the Coun­
cil decision must enable the Commis­
sion to comply with international law. 
Article 30(4)(iii) of the Nuclear Safety 
Convention, under which, when 
becoming party to the Convention, an 
organisation which has the right is to 
communicate to the depositary a dec­
laration indicating which States are its 
members, which articles of the con­
vention apply to it, and the extent of its 
competence in the field covered by 
those articles must, in the interest of 
the other contracting parties, be inter­
preted to mean that the declaration of 
competences under that provision must 
be complete. It follows that the Council 
was, under Community law, required 
to attach a complete declaration of 
competences to its decision approving 
accession to the Convention. 
(see paras 67-71) 
4. It is not appropriate, in order to define 
the Community's competences in the 
area of nuclear safety, to draw an 
artificial distinction between the pro­
tection of the health of the general 
public and the safety of sources of 
ionising radiation. 
(see para. 82) 
I - 11223 
SUMMARY — CASE C-29/99 
5. As regards the competences of the 
European Atomic Energy Community 
in the fields covered by Articles 7, 14, 
16(1) and (3) and 17 to 19 of the 
Nuclear Safety Convention, it is clear 
from Articles 30 to 32 of the Euratom 
Treaty that that Community possesses 
legislative competence to establish, for 
the purpose of health protection, an 
authorisation system which must be 
applied by the Member States. Such a 
legislative act constitutes a measure 
supplementing the basic standards 
referred to in Article 30 of the Euratom 
Treaty. Under the first paragraph of 
Article 33 of that treaty, the Member 
States are required to lay down the 
appropriate provisions, whether by 
legislation, regulation or administrative 
action, to ensure compliance with the 
basic standards established. In accord­
ance with the second paragraph of that 
article, the Commission has the com­
petence to make 'appropriate recom­
mendations for harmonising the provi­
sions applicable in this field in the 
Member States'. The Member States 
are required to communicate those 
provisions to the Commission pursuant 
to the third paragraph of Article 33. 
Under Article 37 of the Euratom 
Treaty, the Community possesses com­
petence as regards 'any plan for the 
disposal of radioactive waste in what­
ever form' if the implementation of 
that plan is liable to result in the 
radioactive contamination of the 
water, soil or airspace of another 
Member State. 
It follows that Article 7, which requires 
each contracting party to establish and 
maintain in force a legislative and 
regulatory framework to govern the 
safety of nuclear ins ta l la t ions , 
Article 14, on the assessment and 
verification of the safety of nuclear 
installations, Article 16(1) and (3), on 
emergency p r e p a r e d n e s s , and 
Articles 17 to 19, on the siting, design 
and construction, and operation of 
nuclear installations, respectively, of 
the Nuclear Safety Convention should 
have been mentioned in the paragraph 
of the declaration indicating the Com­
munity's competences attached to the 
Council Decision approving the acces­
sion of the European Atomic Energy 
Community to the Nuclear Safety Con­
vention. 
(see paras 89, 93-94, 103) 
I - 11224