WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/02 by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission. Passenger protection plan.
Date: 2002-05-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, civil aviation, company in difficulties, consumer protection, indemnification, inter-company agreement, transport user

C 301 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Is it the case that for the purpose of regulatory toxicity testing, animal toxicity tests that have failed
retrospective validation are still in use and are currently included in Annex V of Directive 67/548/EEC (1)
(’the dangerous substances directive’)?

(1)

JO P 196 du 16.8.1967, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

Toxicity tests to assess the properties of chemicals which may be dangerous to human health and the
environment are included in Annex V of Council Directive 67/548/EEC (1), the ‘Dangerous Substances
Directive’. Most of the test methods set out in the Annex are based on those developed and recommended
by competent
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). The quality of such methods is therefore recognised internationally. The test
methods should be performed in conformity with the principles of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), in
order to ensure as wide as possible the mutual acceptance of data.

international bodies,

in particular

It is true that the current animal procedures have not been validated scientifically according to modern
standards. However, it could be considered fair and reasonable to evaluate them by a ‘weight-of-evidence’
approach. That is, since they have been in use for a long while, there is a great deal of experience on
which to base an evaluation of their relevance and reliability.

The 1998 OECD document on the ‘Validation of test methods considered for the adoption as OECD test
guidelines’ (ENV/MC/CHEM (98) 6) acknowledged that ‘… there seems to be a tendency towards being
stricter
so far
uncovered areas.’ The general problem that double standards may be operating has thus been recognised.

for’alternative‘or’replacement‘tests

than for’conventional‘animal

filling gaps of

tests,

The Commission is not aware of any formal retrospective validation of testing methods currently included
in Annex V of Council Directive 67/548/EEC. The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative
Methods (ECVAM) of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) has so far concentrated on prospective validation
studies.

The Commission considers that progress in the development and validation of alternative test methods is
necessary. ECVAM has recently compiled a report, provided for publication in August 2002, on the
current status and future prospects of alternative (non-animal) tests for chemicals testing for human health
effects. The report places the emphasis on methods that can replace existing animal tests, either entirely or
partially. It makes recommendations for the further development and validation of alternative tests and
strategies. According to the ECVAM report there is scope for reducing the numbers of animals required
through reconsideration of group sizes and of experimental design of existing methods.

(1) Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative

provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances.

(2002/C 301 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1469/02

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(27 May 2002)

Subject: Passenger protection plan

The 11th of September 2002 plunged the airline industry into an unprecedented crisis. The industry,
already weakened by the economic recession, saw the disappearance of a number of airlines, such as

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/153

Sabena, Swiss Air, Axon, Ansett, etc. As a consequence, thousands of travellers were stranded throughout
the world, without appropriate recourse to repatriation or reimbursement. More than half a year after the
terrorist attacks in the US, the industry is still in turmoil and numerous are the airlines that are struggling
to survive.

In its Communication entitled ‘Protection of Air Passengers in the European Union’ published in
June 2000 (1), the Commission observes that there is ‘no special need to protect consumers against
bankruptcy of airlines as opposed to other financial risks, as the chance of bankruptcy is not particularly
high’. It further notes that Regulation 2407/92 (2) on the licensing of Community air carriers ensures
financial soundness and various forms of protection. Yet, these provisions have not prevented a number of
sound and reliable European airlines going bankrupt in the wake of the 11th of September. In view of the
recent terror acts in the world is the Commission still of the same opinion that protection against an
airline’s financial default is not necessary?

In the said Communication, the Commission refers to an industry initiative creating a guarantee fund, by
which passengers would be repatriated and reimbursed in case of an airline’s bankruptcy.
Is the
Commission aware of the progress of this initiative?

We understand that many European flag carriers are not in favour of a passenger protection fund on
grounds that they do not want their passengers to pay for the possibility of bankruptcy of other less sound
and reliable airlines. Since this is a voluntary initiative, will the Commission be satisfied with a scheme that
does not cover all European airlines or which will not cover airlines operating in Member States that have
opted to stay outside the plan?

In the Air Passenger Protection Communication, the Commission states its intention to prepare legislation
on contracts and conditions of carriage. Does the Commission intend to address better protection of
passengers in case of an airline’s bankruptcy in this legislative proposal?

(1) COM(2000) 365 final.
(2) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The Commission is aware that not all Community airlines will adopt the passenger protection plan
negotiated by organisations representing airlines and travel agencies (the International Air Transport
Association and the European Council of Travel Agents Associations).
the plan will be
implemented in thoses states where a majority of airlines and travel agents agree to it, in the Community,
that is around half of the Member States at present.

In fact,

The drawback clearly is that such a voluntary scheme would protect some but not all passengers against
the financial losses that a failure could cause and that competition between air carriers may be affected.
the voluntary scheme and in
Therefore the Commission will carefully monitor the effectiveness of
particular future developments on the coverage of these measures.

As there are reasonable arguments for and against voluntary and obligatory schemes, the Commission
believes it essential to consult all interested parties before drawing conclusions for policy. It intends to
publish a consultative document on airlines’ contracts with passengers, designed to prepare a proposal for
legislation on these contracts. In this document it will pose the question of whether the Community should
legislate to protect passengers in the event of bankruptcy or leave it to voluntary initiatives.