Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security"
Date: 2001-11-28
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: air transport, civil aviation, terrorism, transport safety

C 48/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on establishing common rules in the field of civil aviation security’

(2002/C 48/17)

On 5 November 2001, the Council of the European Union decided to consult the Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-
mentioned proposal.

The Economic and Social Committee decided to instruct the Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure
and the Information Society to carry out the preparatory work on this opinion. The rapporteur was
Mr Green.

At its 386th plenary session of 28 and 29 November 2001 (meeting of 28 November) the Economic and
Social Committee decided, in view of the urgency of the work, to appoint Mr Green rapporteur-general
and adopted the following opinion by 74 votes in favour, with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

— protection of cockpit access;

1.1.
The day after the terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington on 11 September 2001 the Heads of State and
Government, the President of the European Parliament, the
President of the European Commission and the High Represen-
tative responsible for the common foreign and security policy
decided that the European Union must take urgent decisions
to respond to this new threat. The Council of the European
Union, which met the same day, asked the Ministers of
to evaluate the measures taken to ensure air
Transport
transport
security and to consider possible additional
measures.

1.2.
At a special meeting of the Transport Ministers on
14 September 2001, the Council adopted a decision to the
effect that it was necessary to implement fully the essential
measures to prevent unlawful acts against civil aviation set out
in Document 30 of the European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) (1).

1.3.
Lastly, the European Council, meeting in extraordinary
session on 21 September 2001 called upon the Transport
Council to take the necessary measures to strengthen air
transport security at its next meeting on 15 October. These
measures cover in particular:

— classification of weapons;

— technical training for crews;

— checking and monitoring of hold luggage;

— quality control of security measures applied by Member

States.

2. The Commission’s proposal

2.1.
The Member States have been able to react in an
appropriate manner to earlier waves of terrorism through
cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organis-
ation (2) and ECAC. While passenger numbers increased four-
fold and flight numbers doubled between 1970 and 1999, the
number of acts affecting the security of air transport fell from
100 to 6 and the number of victims from 92 to 0.

Recent events have shown that

the situation has
2.2.
changed dramatically and that we in the Community are all
now faced with the same threat that any aircraft can be
hijacked on departure from an airport and used as a potential
bomb against any city within its flying range.

Awareness of

this interdependence is one of

2.3.
the
conclusions that emerged from discussions in the fora referred
leading to the realisation that everyone must
to above,
now implement
in ECAC
Document 30 uniformly, for both international and domestic
flights. In addition, a collective mechanism should be devised
to check that these measures are being applied.

the recommendations set out

(1) The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) is a voluntary
association of European aviation authorities which has adopted a
number of recommendations, notably in the field of civil aviation
security.

(2) The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is the UN

civil aviation authority.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/71

2.4.
Given this situation and the urgent need to restore
public confidence in air transport, the Commission believes
that a regulation is the best way of ensuring common adoption
of the proposed rules since a directive would take too long to
implement. The Commission considers that a regulation falls
within the scope of the common transport policy, and hence
Article 80(2) of the Treaty.

2.5.
As mentioned above, there is agreement that ECAC
Document 30 should be the basis for regulation but the
measures detailed therein are not detailed enough to enable
their application to be monitored; technical standards must
therefore be adopted to overcome this problem. Further,
not all Member States have implemented all the measures
recommended in ECAC Document 30. It will therefore be
necessary to implement the proposed rules gradually. In this
connection, to ensure the coordination of efforts, it will be
essential
for each Member State to appoint a competent
authority.

2.8.
The Commission also proposes the creation of an
effective system of control which can, among other things,
help to spread good practice.

2.9.
It is important to realise that the proposed regulation
can only apply to Community territory. Third country flights
which land in or overfly the Member States will therefore not
be covered. Consequently it will still be necessary to ensure
civil aviation security throughout the world by concluding
bilateral or multilateral arrangements. Action along these lines
in this context, the
is already in progress in the ICAO;
Community and other parties have proposed that the civil
aviation security rules contained in Annex 17 to the Chicago
Convention be tightened up.

3. General comments

2.6.
The proposed rules must give the Community the
means to ensure civil aviation security through the following
measures:

3.1.
The ESC welcomes the proposal for a regulation insofar
as it is a fast and adequate answer to the need to ensure a high
level of security by taking action to prevent acts of unlawful
interference against civil aviation.

— control of access to sensitive areas of airports and aircraft;

— control of passengers and their hand luggage;

— control and monitoring of hold luggage;

— control of cargo and mail;

— training of ground staff;

— definition of specifications for the equipment for the

above controls;

— classification of weapons and others items which it is
prohibited to bring on to aircraft or into the sensitive
areas of airports.

Since there may be exceptional cases where the com-
2.7.
mon measures are not
fully suitable for dealing with a
particular threat on certain flights, the Member States must be
able to take special preventive measures. However, such
contingency provisions can undermine the general measures.
The Community must therefore have a control mechanism to
protect against undesirable repercussions of national contin-
gency rules and enable any national variants which are no
longer justified to be terminated.

Accordingly, the form of the legal act, adopted by the
3.2.
Commission (a regulation instead of a directive) is welcomed.
The regulation is in principle directly applicable in all Member
States without having to wait for the transposition into
national law.

3.3.
The ESC notes that the common standards on security
measures at airports and the technical specifications for
equipment in support of aviation security are based on the
current standards of ECAC Document 30 and are laid down in
the annex of that regulation. This technical annex is constantly
updated against the backdrop of a comitology procedure. The
Committee supports such a procedure for the adoption of
detailed technical implementing arrangements.

The Committee thinks that the current events in the
3.4.
US call for speedy, but also carefully considered, decisions in
an effort to secure a high level of civil aviation security.

The EU is currently considering three other air safety

3.5.
proposals:

— a regulation amending technical requirements and admin-
istrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (JAR-
OPS);

— a proposal for a directive on accident prevention and the
collection and dissemination of information in the field
of civil aviation;

C 48/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.2.2002

— a proposal for a directive on safety requirements and the

attestation of professional competence for cabin crews.

to land at EU airports only if the level of security applicable in
the airport of origin is at least equivalent to the provisions of
the regulation.

3.6.
These proposals, which have an impact on air safety,
should be promoted and finally adopted as quickly as possible.

4.1.2.
should not be limited to the territory of EU.

The concept of security is not a territorial one and it

3.7.
The title of the Commission’s proposal for a regulation
is inappropriate, since the proposal deals only with security
provisions for aircraft boarding, not on-board measures.

4.2.

Common standards [Article 4(1)]

3.8.
Effective legislation dealing with on-board security
should be put into effect as quickly as possible, covering,
among other things, cockpit access, in-flight security staff and
the maintenance of effective air-ground communication in
case of emergency.

3.9.
the rec-
The regulation specifically proposes that
ommendations set out in ECAC Document 30 be incorporated
into EU legislation.

3.10.
its publication in the EC Official Journal.

The regulation is to enter into force twenty days after

4.2.1.
Direct reference should be made in this provision to
the current standards of European Civil Aviation Conference
(ECAC) Document 30.

4.3. More stringent measures (Article 6)

4.3.1.
The ESC wonders about the provisions of article 6 of
the proposal for a regulation which allows Member States to
apply more stringent measures than those laid down in the
regulation. The objective of the regulation is already to ensure
a high level of security.

4.3.2.
If the provisions of this article are maintained it is
essential that the Commission checks its application to ensure
that these measures are not discriminatory or unnecessarily
restrictive

3.11.
structure proposals.

This timeframe is unrealistic, especially for the infra-

4.4.

Compliance monitoring [Article 7(3)]

3.12.
significant expenditure.

Implementation of the proposed rules will involve

4.4.1.
i.e. the
Airport inspections are to be announced,
Commission is to inform the Member State concerned in good
time before an inspection.

The Committee feels it is unfair that airports and
3.13.
airlines should bear this additional expenditure. Securing
public safety at airports should be a matter for Member States.

The Committee feels that a monitoring system based
4.4.2.
on unannounced inspections would be much more effective in
securing implementation of the regulation.

4. Specific comments

4.1.

Scope (Article 3)

4.5.

Publication of information (Article 9)

4.5.1.
Confidentiality considerations should be borne in
mind in the publication of the Commission’s annual report on
the implementation of this regulation.

4.1.1.
The ESC wonders whether article 3 of the proposal
for a regulation which states, ‘the measures prescribed by that
regulation shall apply to any airport and other air navigation
facilities, located in the territory of the Member States’ is not
in contradiction with its main objective. The ESC asks whether
the aircraft coming from third countries should be authorized

5. Conclusion

The Committee backs the proposal,

including the
5.1.
decision to issue a regulation rather than a directive, which
would take a long time to implement.

21.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 48/73

5.2.
Three other pieces of proposed legislation dealing with
civil aviation security should be promoted and adopted as
quickly as possible.

5.4. With regard to infrastructure, the suggested timeframe
for implementing the proposal is unrealistic.

5.3.
This proposal deals only with security measures for
boarding an aircraft. Legislation dealing with on-board security
should be proposed and adopted as quickly as possible.

5.5.
The significant additional expenditure involved in
implementing the proposals should be shouldered by the
Member States.

Brussels, 28 November 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Tax policy in the European Union —
Priorities for the years ahead’

(2002/C 48/18)

On 5 June 2001 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on ‘Tax policy in the European Union —
Priorities for the years ahead’.

The Section for Economic and Monetary Union and Economic and Social Cohesion, which was
responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 November
2001. The rapporteur was Mr Morgan.

At its 386th plenary session (meeting of 28 November 2001), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 72 votes for and 8 votes against with 7 abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The Commission’s communication is complete and

1.1.
comprehensive.

In its introduction (1), the Commission explains the purpose of
the communication:

‘This Communication sets out the Commission view of the
fundamental priorities for tax policy in the European
Union in the years ahead. It explains the general approach
which,
in the Commission’s opinion, the Community
needs to adopt having regard to wider EU policy objectives,
and highlights a number of priorities in specific tax areas.
In view of the fact that the legal basis for decisions on
taxation will, for the time being, remain unanimity, this

(1) COM(2001) 260 final, Introduction, last paragraph.

Communication also examines whether there are other
appropriate instruments that could be used, in addition to
legislation, to achieve these policy objectives.’

1.2.
The communication is divided into four parts: the
general context for developing EU tax policy; EU tax policy —
specific objectives for the years ahead; mechanisms to achieve
the objectives; conclusion. In section 2, we have summarised
the Commission’s statement of context without comment,
simply to position the proposals which the Commission has
subsequently made. In the next three sections of the opinion,
we quote the Commission’s actions/proposals and give an
opinion as to whether they should be accepted or rejected.