Ndash having regard to the Commission’s amended proposal (COM(2001)142)(1),
Ndash having regard to Article251(2) of the EC Treaty,Ndash having regard to Rule 78 of its Rules of Procedure,Ndash having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Industry, External
Trade, Research and Energy (A5-0298/2001),
1. Approves the common position;
2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;
3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article254(1) of
the EC Treaty;
4. Instructs its Secretary-General duly to sign the act and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of
the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Communities;
5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.
(1) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001, p. 262.
6. Accident at AZF, Toulouse, and environmental protection policy
B5-0611, 0612, 0614 and 0615/2001
European Parliament resolution on the explosion at a factory in Toulouse (France)
The European Parliament,
Ndash having regard to Articles174 and 308 of the EC Treaty,
Ndash having regard to Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident
hazards involving dangerous substances(1) and in particular Article11 on emergency plans and Arti-
cle12 on land-use planning,
Ndash having regard to the related Commission Decision 1999/314/EC of 9 April 1999(2) imposing an
obligation on the Member States to draw up a report covering the period 2000 to 2002, and havingregard to the previous reports on the application of Directive 96/82/EC,
Ndash having regard to the Council Resolution of 16 October 1989 on guidelines to reduce technological
and natural hazards(
3),
Ndash having regard to the Council Resolution of 8 July 1991 on improving mutual aid between Member
States in the event of natural or technological disaster(4),
Ndash having regard to its resolution of 4 September 2001 on the Commission’s seventeenth annual report
on monitoring the application of Community law (1999) (COM(2000)92 Ndash C5-0381/2000 Ndash 2000/2197(COS))(
5),
(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 120, 8.5.1999, p. 43.
(3) OJ C 273, 26.10.1989, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 198, 27.7.1991, p. 1.
(5) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 6.11.4.2002 EN C87E/121 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 3 October 2001
Ndash having regard to the Council Decision 1999/847/EC of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community
action programme in the field of civil protection(1),
Ndash having regard to its position of 14 June 2001 on the proposal for a Council decision establishing a
Community mechanism for the coordination of civil protection intervention in the event of emerg-
encies (COM(2000)593 Ndash C5-0543/2000 Ndash 2000/0248(CNS))(2),
A. mindful of the huge explosion which rocked the AZF factory at Toulouse, devastating the site and
several surrounding residential areas (hospitals, schools, universities, etc.) and killing 29 people andinjuring several hundred others,
B. whereas the consequences of the Toulouse disaster were made more dramatic because the factory was
close to residential areas; whereas its proximity to other at-risk industrial sites could have set off adomino effect,
C. mindful of the long list of dramatic industrial and chemical accidents which have occurred since
Seveso in 1976, in particular in Basel (Switzerland), Bhopal (India), Baia Mare (Romania) and Enschede(Netherlands), and the sad procession of mourning and tremendous destruction which followed intheir wake,
D. whereas these accidents, owing to their scale, repeated occurrence and the feeling that they are ines-
capable, have broken the pact of trust between the public and the legislative and regulatory frameworkwhich is supposed to protect it from industrial risks,
E. whereas the Seveso directives have enhanced the safety of the industrial sites concerned but have also
revealed, as accidents have occurred, their shortcomings and the limits to the protection which theycan offer, given that some of these tragedies, particularly that in Toulouse, took place at sites whichare covered by the scope of the Seveso directives,
F. whereas this plant, which was built in 1924, had been listed as being in a ‘Seveso’ area since 1982,
G. bearing in mind that the chemical sector employs several million people in the European Union, and
in particular 900000 people in France,
H. whereas classified industrial sites represent enormous potential dangers, particularly if they are used as
targets by people with malicious intent, above all since our society now finds itself increasinglyexposed to abominable terrorist threats,
1. Deeply shocked by the terrible accident in the AZF factory in Toulouse, expresses its sympathy and
solidarity to the victims, families and populations affected;
2. Calls on the national governments facing this type of disaster to ensure full transparency with regard
to the criminal or accidental causes of such appalling damage to people and property in order to deter-
mine who or what is responsible for it;
3. Congratulates the French authorities on the way in which appropriate aid has been provided to the
populations affected, the smooth functioning of aid and the decisions already announced, in particular asregards emergency accommodation;
4. Calls, in order to express its solidarity with those affected, for the reinstatement of the emergency
budget heading enabling EU financial aid to be provided in the event of natural, technological and environ-mental disasters, to supplement the aid provided by national, regional and local authorities;
5. Calls for great efforts to be made at the European Union level to step up coordination of existing
European civil protection measures, so that in emergencies there is information on the resources in theMember States that can be mobilised, in order to allow rapid intervention, facilitate the work of expertsfrom different Member States and improve communications and notification of the public; to this end callsfor sufficient financial and human resources to be allocated;
(1) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 53.
(2) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 26.C87E/122 EN 11.4.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 3 October 2001
6. Notes the impossibility of ‘zero risk’ in the case of close proximity between an urban population and
such petro-chemical industrial complexes and takes the view that the current approach to ‘risk manage-ment’ dating from the time of the Seveso accident, which has prevailed up to now, has been overtaken byevents and that it is now necessary and urgent to adopt an approach based on ‘risk removal’; asks, con-sequently, that the lessons learned from the Toulouse disaster should provide the basis for proposals to bemade by the Commission to the European Parliament as soon as possible;
7. Calls urgently on the Member States to initiate an in-depth review of policies on regional and urban
planning in the vicinity of risk sites, including as regards the fiscal aspects, in order to prevent any repeti-tion of such disasters; considers that, in the case of high-risk industrial sites, consultation proceduresbetween public authorities and elected representatives, local residents, industry and staff representativesshould make it possible to restructure these sites with a view to sustainable development reconciling con-cerns relating to safety, employment and the environment;
8. Takes the view that everything possible should be done to safeguard jobs at the sites concerned so as
not to add social tragedy to the environmental threat, and that any solution concerning the future of thesites and the jobs must be sought in close cooperation with the employees and the elected representatives;
9. Strongly opposes, in the context of the solidarity which has always been affirmed by the European
Union in its cooperation and development policy, any attempt to relocate dangerous sites to countrieswhere environmental and social standards are lower than those in force in EU territory; urges the MemberStates and the Union to implement all possible technical and financial measures, and take all political steps,to achieve this objective;
10. Wishes the legal liability of industry and the authorities responsible for regional planning and land
use to be better defined and strengthened in the event of an accident; furthermore, industry should play amore substantial part in compensating those affected and repairing damage; calls on the Commission tosubmit as soon as possible its proposal for a directive on environmental liability;
11. Hopes that the opportunity offered by the necessary evolution of European legislation relating to
industrial risks will be seized to prompt the Union, in the context of sustainable development, to questionthe usefulness or purpose of certain chemical products and of certain now obsolete production processes;
12. Is greatly concerned by the fact that not one of the 15 Member States had fully complied with the
provisions of the Seveso II Directive by its transposition date and notes in this respect that the Commis-sion has initiated 6 infringement proceedings against Member States for failure to implement the directiveor incomplete implementation thereof;
13. Calls on the Commission to encourage compliance with the directive by publishing, within three
months, a list of sites throughout the European Union which are of concern or which, in the event of anaccident, have the potential to cause damage on a scale similar to that brought about by the explosion inToulouse;
14. Calls urgently on the Commission to take full account, as soon as possible, of the lessons which
must be drawn from this tragedy so as to respond to the needs to strengthen the regulation and control ofhigh-risk establishments when the Seveso II Directive is revised, on the basis of the following elements inparticular:
Ndash strengthening of safety and control standards in order to prevent major accidents and limit the con-
sequences for people and the environment,
Ndash extension of the scope of the directive,
Ndash strengthening of standards to reduce industrial discharges into the water and the atmosphere,Ndash extension of safety areas, including retroactively,Ndash improved information to the public on the risks faced and the measures to be taken in the event of a
disaster,11.4.2002 EN C87E/123 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 3 October 2001
Ndash organisation of epidemiological studies in areas close to dangerous establishments,
Ndash strengthening of the role of health and safety committees in the firms concerned and more account
taken of the opinion of employees and trade union organisations,
Ndash consideration of the role of the office responsible at European level for monitoring implementation of
the Seveso II Directive, the Major Accident Hazards Bureau (MAHB)(1);
15. Regrets that the Member States, despite repeated warnings, do not provide themselves with suffi-
cient numbers of competent and specialised inspectors and calls, consequently, for such staff to berecruited and suitably trained, and for minimum qualification criteria for inspectors to be updated inorder to guarantee the same level of safety on classified sites in the EU;
16. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments
and parliaments of the Member States and the candidate countries, and to the local authorities of theToulouse conurbation.
(1) http://mahbsrv.jrc.it.
7. Common asylum procedure
A5-0304/2001
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication entitled ‘Towards a common
asylum procedure and a uniform status, valid throughout the Union, for persons granted asylum’
(COM(2000)755 gdash C5-0101/2001 gdash 2001/2048(COS))
The European Parliament,
Ndash having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000)755 Ndash C5-0101/2001),Ndash having regard to Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community on visas, asylum, immi-
gration and other policies related to the free movement of persons,
Ndash having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Articles2 and 6 thereof,
Ndash having regard to Articles18 and 19(2) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights,
Ndash having regard to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, adopted on 4 November 1950,
Ndash having regard to the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees, as
amended by the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967,
Ndash having regard to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948,
Ndash having regard to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted on 10 December 1984,
Ndash having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted on 20 November 1989,Ndash having regard to the Council resolution of 20 June 1995 on minimum guarantees for asylum pro-
cedures(
1),
Ndash having regard to the Dublin Convention of 15 June 1990 determining the State responsible for exam-
ining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities(2),
(1) OJ C 274, 19.9.1996, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 254, 19.8.1997, p. 1.C87E/124 EN 11.4.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 3 October 2001