WRITTEN QUESTION E-1135/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Electric shock weapons.
Date: 2001-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, arms trade, firearms and munitions, torture, trade restriction

C 350 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

to Regulation 1760/2000 to require information on the carcass weight. In this respect, such information
was not considered a priority by the Council or the Parliament in the discussions leading to agreement on
this Regulation.

(1) OJ L 117, 7.5.1997.
(2) OJ L 355, 5.12.1992.
(3) OJ L 204, 11.8.2000.
(4) OJ 121, 29.7.1964.

(2001/C 350 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1135/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Electric shock weapons

Is the Commission aware of evidence that electric shock weapons, for example electric-shock batons,
electric-shock shields, stun guns, and lasers are being used in certain countries as instruments of torture?

Will the Commission state which Member States currently impose restrictions on the sale, manufacture, or
transfer of such weapons?

Do any EU-wide restrictions on electric shock weapons currently exist and if not, does the Commission
consider that such restrictions would be desirable?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

On 9 April 2001, the Council adopted Guidelines on Union Policy towards third countries on Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1). It referred to ongoing work to introduce
Community-wide controls on the exports of paramilitary equipment as an example of a measure within
the Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) to effectively work towards the prevention of torture and
ill-treatment.

The Commission is currently considering a proposal to that end. It is aware of allegations that (high
voltage) electro-shock equipment, such as belts and batons, could be used as instruments of torture in
a number of countries, for example as mentioned in Amnesty International(cid:146)s recent report (cid:145)Stopping the
Torture Trade(cid:146).

In the internal market, manufacturing and trading of high-voltage electro-shock equipment designed for
protection against, or controlling of, violent persons is not subject to specific regulation at Community
level. However, Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991, on control of
the acquisition and
possession of weapons (2) provides a general framework for transfers within the internal market. As regards
weapons other than firearms, Member States must in particular prohibit their entry into their territory
provided that the national provisions of the Member State in question so permit. The fact that Directive
91/477/EEC does not apply to the acquisition or possession of weapons by the armed forces, the police,
the public authorities, or collectors and bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of
weapons, and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established, does not
appear to have given rise to specific problems in Member States.

Moreover, the abuse of electro-shock equipment for the purpose of torture is a crime in the legal systems
of the Member States, as the prohibition against torture is included in a number of United Nations (UN)
and Council of Europe Conventions.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/79

The Commission is not fully informed when it comes to restrictions that Member States may currently
apply as regards the sale or manufacture of electro-shock equipment in their territory, and as regards the
export to or import from third countries. Such restrictions should, however, be in line with relevant
Community law. Thus, restrictions on imports should in particular be compatible with either Council
Regulation (EC) No 3285/1994 of 22 December 1994, on common rules for imports (3) or Council
Regulation (EC) No 519/1994 of 7 March 1994, on common rules for imports from certain third
countries (4). Restrictions on exports should in particular be compatible with Council Regulation (EC)
No 2603/1969 of 20 December 1969 establishing common rules for exports (5).

(1) http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/main.cfm?LANG=1.
(2) OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.
(3) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.
(4) OJ L 67, 10.3.1994.
(5) OJ L 324, 27.12.1969.

(2001/C 350 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1137/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: European employment policy

The recent changes to the football transfer fees system state that professional football players now have
different rights according to their age, with greater compensation being awarded for the transfer of players
up to the age of 23.

How can the value of employees in terms of age be reconciled with other European employment
legislation? Will it set a precedent for any other employment sectors?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Commission first reminds that the Court of Justice recognised in its Bsoman judgment that the aim of
encouraging the recruitment and training of young players is legitimate and can justify an obstacle to the
free movement of workers.

According to the general principles set out in the outcome of the discussions between the Commission and
International Federation of Football Associations/Union of European Football Associations (FIFA/UEFA) on
FIFA regulations on international football transfers, in the case of players aged under 23, a system of
training compensation should be put in place to encourage and reward the training efforts of clubs, in
particular small clubs.

The sum paid in that situation will specifically compensate for the training provided to young players. As
this compensation is applied to a different situation, it cannot be regarded as being discriminatory.

Taking into account that this system aims to meet the specific needs of sport, it is not transposable to
other industries.