WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Seveso II directive.
Date: 2000-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dangerous substance, explosive, industrial hazard, national implementing measure

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/179

(2001/C 89 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Seveso II directive

In answer to my oral question No 64 (H-0469/00) (1), the Commission stated that the scope of the Seveso
II directive had been both extended and simplified. This means that the manufacture and storage of
pyrotechnical substances, above certain threshold values, have been covered by this directive since
3 February 1999.

Are persons, organisations and/or firms which have been the victim of the non-adjustment of the Seveso
directive within the deadline laid down by the Commission able to take legal proceedings against the
Member State at fault with a view to obtaining compensation? If so, in what way should the persons or
bodies concerned go about starting such proceedings? If not, why not, and what are the Commission(cid:146)s
legal arguments for adopting this position?

(1) Answered in writing on 13 June 2000.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The right of an individual, an organisation or a firm, which has been damaged by late transposition of
Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving
dangerous substances (1), to bring an action against and claiming damages from the respective Member
State, is covered by the case law of the Court of justice on state liability.

The Court of justice has developed in its case law the principle that Member States are obliged to make
good loss and damage caused to individuals by breaches of Community law for which they can be held
responsible under the conditions that the rule of Community law breached is intended to confer rights
upon individuals, the breach is sufficiently serious and there is a direct causal link between the breach and
the damage sustained by the individuals (cases 6/90 and 9/90, Francovich [1991] ECR I-5357, 5415;
joined cases 46/93 and 48/93 [1996], ECR I-1029).

The means by which individuals may launch such a procedure, are also covered by the Court of justice(cid:146)s
case law, according to which the individual may bring the claim before the national court in accordance
with the national law on liability. However, the conditions laid down by the national laws must not be less
favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims or framed in such a way as in practice to make it
impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2001/C 89 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Seveso II directive

In answer to my oral question No 64 (H-0469/00) (1), the Commission stated that the scope of the Seveso
II directive had been both extended and simplified. This means that the manufacture and storage of
pyrotechnical substances have been covered by this directive since 3 February 1999.

C 89 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

In what way has the Netherlands transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes

1.
been made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has the Belgian Federation transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the

2.
changes been made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has France transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

3.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Germany transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

4.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Ireland transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

5.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has the United Kingdom transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the

6.
changes been made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Denmark transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

7.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Sweden transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

8.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Spain transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been made

9.
within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Portugal transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

10.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Greece transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes been

11.
made within the period set by the Commission?

In what way has Luxembourg transposed these changes in national legislation? Have the changes

12.
been made within the period set by the Commission?

(1) Answered in writing on 13 June 2000.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

According to its Article 24, Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-
accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1) had to be implemented (transposed and applied) by
Member States by 3 February 1999 at the latest. The Commission would like to emphasise that the
transposition period of two years from the entry into force of the Directive was decided by the Council
upon adoption of the Directive, and not by the Commission. By 3 February 1999, the Commission had
not received a single notification of transposing laws, regulations and administrative provisions from the
Member States.

Since then, several Member States have communicated their transposing legislation to the Commission.
However, infringement proceedings are pending against nine Member States concerning non-communica-
tion of transposing measures. In six of the nine cases, the Commission has recently decided to bring the
matter before the Court of justice either for non-communication or for incomplete communication
(Belgium, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria and Portugal). In parallel, conformity assessments of
the communicated transposing legislation are being carried out by the Commission.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.