WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Amendment of Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European arms policy, award of contract, competition law, derogation from EU law, military equipment

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/35

paper (9) and it further appeared from the replies to the ensuing public consultation in early 2000 (10). The
Commission(cid:146)s Communications and the ISG Report envisaged that the Registry would be a private not-for-
profit self-regulating entity operating in the public interest. The Registry will be designated by open and
transparent procedures.

(1) OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001.
(2) COM(2000) 421 final.
(3)

(cid:145)Meanwhile, as announced in the July 2000 Communication, the Commission and the Internet community in
Europe have moved forward with detailed technical and policy preparations. This has been done in the context of
the existing European Community Panel of Participants (EC-POP) who have constituted an Interim Steering Group
(ISG) that worked on this question during May-October 2000. A report on their work is available and has been
published for comment, (http://www.ec-pop.org/1009prop/index.htm). Indeed, the Community has an interest in
benefiting from the available expertise among those groups most actively participating in the development of the
Internet in Europe. For that reason, particular weight is attached to the work of the Interim Steering Group,
including for example,
the registry,
contractual relationships between the Commission and the registry organisation and the options for the form that
organisation could take. The ISG members recognise that their work in this area was of an advisory nature.(cid:146)

the eventual operational and technical characteristics of

its analysis of

(4) http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt.
(5) http://www.iana.org/cctld/icp1.htm.
(6) http://www.icann.org/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm.
(7) The three letter code (cid:145)€(cid:146) has also been standardised by ISO to represent the name of the Euro currency.
(8)

In the case of several existing ccTLD Registries, including those in the Union, eligibility requirements have recently
been progressively relaxed, to include non-residents. The Parliament has recently asked the Commission to conduct
a review of the national measures in this regard. (European parliament Resolution A5-0063/2001 of 15 March
2001, Clauses 18 and 19).

(9) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/policy/internet/workingpaper_en.htm.
(10) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/information_society/policy/internet/com2000421_en.htm.

(2002/C 40 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1323/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Amendment of Article 296(1)(b) of the EC Treaty

On 15 December 2000 the Belgian Federation decided that
it would no longer link its military
procurement to economic compensation for businesses in Flanders and Wallonia. The notification by the
Council of Ministers [i.e. the Belgian Government] for an order of night sights includes the following
statement:
(cid:145)The Council confirms that future orders will no longer contain an economic compensation
clause.(cid:146) Previously the government had sought whenever possible to place military procurement orders (cid:129)
worth billions (cid:129) with (cid:145)Belgian(cid:146) companies. The compensation was always veiled in an atmosphere of
protectionism and unsavoury conflicts of interest because decisions were not taken in accordance with
market principles. The F16 fighter and Agusta helicopter cases are two classic examples of this happening
in Belgium.

The Belgian Government(cid:146)s decision should be emulated at European level. By putting an end to national
economic compensation, the procurement of military equipment can in future be placed on a transparent
footing, and one which accords with market principles, avoiding protectionism and the mingling of
political and business interests. The aims of the European Rapid Reaction Force, as agreed at Helsinki, also
require a new approach to military procurement.

Pursuant to Article 296(2) of the EC Treaty, the Council may, (cid:145)acting unanimously on a proposal from the
Commission, make changes to the list, which it drew up on 15 April 1958, of the products to which the
provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply(cid:146). Article 296(1)(b) permits Member States to waive the general principle
of competition (Title VI of the EC Treaty) in the case of military procurement. By altering the scope of
Article 296(1)(b), the procurement of military equipment can in future be based on market principles.
More specifically, the Commission would have to propose to the Council that all military (cid:145)products(cid:146) be
deleted from the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply, which the Council drew
up on 15 April 1958.

C 40 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

Will the Commission submit to the Council a proposal pursuant to Article 296(2) of the EC Treaty for
deleting all military (cid:145)products(cid:146) from the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply,
which the Council drew up on 15 April 1958? If not, why will the Commission not draft such a proposal,
considering the need for it in the light of the ambitious objectives of the European Rapid Reaction Force as
agreed at Helsinki?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission is delighted by the Belgian authorities(cid:146) decision to no longer tie military procurement to
economic compensation for businesses in Flanders and Wallonia but it would remind the Honourable
Member that public procurement of arms does not enjoy a derogation from market rules. Article 296(1)(b)
(ex Article 223) of the EC Treaty expressly states that such a derogation is not possible unless justified by
the protection of a Member State(cid:146)s essential security interests. Furthermore, Article 298 (ex Article 225) of
the Treaty provides for referral to the Court of Justice of any abuse of this provision. Article 296 lays down
that such a derogation from Community law may not adversely affect the conditions of competition for
products which are not intended for specifically military purposes. It therefore does not exclude the
application of Community law: any exception must be interpreted strictly and justified by the essential
security interests of the Member State requesting it.

Nevertheless, the issue of military procurement is also closely linked to the conduct of the common
foreign and security policy (CFSP) and defence policy, and so is a highly politically sensitive matter which
makes it a special case. The Commission and the Member States drew up a text on the matter within
Polarm (Working Party on a European Armaments Policy), which was approved by the Committee of
in December 1996 and incorporated in the Commission(cid:146)s
Permanent Representatives
communication on the defence industry in December 1997 (1).

(Coreper)

This is why the Commission will not be submitting to the Council a proposal (cid:145)that all military products be
deleted from the list of products to which the provisions of paragraph 1(b) apply, which the Council drew
up on 15 April 1958.(cid:146) The 1958 list to which Article 296(1)(b) applies is a list of military equipment.
Deleting military products from this list would mean that the list would have no raison d(cid:146)Œtre and military
products would lose their special status.

The Commission(cid:146)s position is to encourage the creation of specific instruments for armaments and to
create the conditions for a single European market in these products, rendering recourse to Article 296
redundant.

(1) COM(97) 583 final.

(2002/C 40 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/01

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Implementation by Member States of the Seveso II Directive

Under the Seveso II Directive, how has each Member State interpreted the expected distance of concern
around:

1. A 100-tonne LPG storage?

2. A processing plant with a maximum inventory of 100 tonnes of a very toxic chemical?

3. A 30-tonne chlorine vessel?

4. A mixed chemicals warehouse with 200 tonnes of toxic chemicals stored with other flammable

materials?