WRITTEN QUESTION E-1349/01 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Implementation by Member States of the Seveso II Directive.
Date: 2001-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: civil defence, dangerous substance, environmental risk prevention, industrial hazard, national implementing measure, safety standard

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?

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/37

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

(6 July 2001)

Article 12 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996, on the control of major-accident hazards
involving dangerous substances (1) (hereafter Seveso II Directive) requires Member States to ensure that the
objectives of preventing major accidents and limiting the consequences of such accidents are taken into
account in their land use policies and/or other relevant policies. Furthermore, they shall ensure that these
policies and the procedures for implementing them take account of the need, in the long term, to maintain
appropriate distances between establishments covered by the Directive and residential areas, areas of public
use and areas of particular natural sensitivity or interest, and, in the case of existing establishments, of the
need for additional technical measures so as not to increase the risks to people.

Article 12 does not prescribe (cid:145)distances of concern(cid:146) around hazardous establishments and should therefore
not be interpreted in that way that all Member States should use the same consultation or separation
distances for the establishments mentioned in the question. Moreover, the Directive does not require
harmonised methods for the evaluation of risk.

The requirements for land use planning are newly introduced into the Seveso II Directive; its predecessor,
Council Directive 82/501/EEC of 24 June 1982 on the major-accident hazards of certain industrial
activities (2) (now called Seveso I Directive) did not contain such requirements. However, several Member
States already have existing established practices for achieving a degree of separation between hazardous
establishments and residential population. In general, the methods used are disparate, ranging from explicit
consideration of the risks of major-accidents in some cases to a generic (cid:145)zoning(cid:146) approach based on
distances derived historically, normally by taking account of various environmental factors such as noise,
pollution, etc. which give separation distances which are sometimes perceived to implicitly also take
account of accident hazards.

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.
(2) OJ L 230, 5.8.1982.

(2002/C 40 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1367/01

by Bernhard Rapkay (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Subject: Funding for broadcasting from fees after the Preussen Elektra judgment

In the past the Commission has treated the funding of public service broadcasting by fees Phoenix/
the EC Treaty. Viewers pay
Kinderkanal, News 24) as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of
broadcasting organisations fees based on legal guidelines. In this respect the Commission interprets the
criterion of (cid:145)by a Member State or through State resources(cid:146) to the effect that a charge to the State budget is
not absolutely required. However, the required charge to the State was established by the fact that viewers
were obliged to pay the fees on the basis of legal guidelines.

However, in the Preussen Elektra v. Schleswag judgment (Case C-379/98) the Court of Justice ruled on
13 March 2001 that not all advantages granted by a State, whether financed through State resources or
not, constituted aid; the distinction between aid granted by a Member State and aid granted through State
resources was intended merely to bring within the definition both advantages which were granted directly
by the State and those granted by a public or private body designated or established by the State
(paragraph 58 of the judgment). Furthermore, the fact that the purchase obligation in question was
imposed by statute and conferred an undeniable advantage on certain undertakings did not confer upon it
the character of State aid (para. 61).