WRITTEN QUESTION E-2314/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Seveso II directive.
Date: 2000-07-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, damages, dangerous substance, explosive, industrial hazard, interpretation of the law

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.