WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/02 by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against European companies by the United States Aviation Security Act (S1447).
Date: 2002-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, GATS, United States, air safety, air transport, common commercial policy, liability, market access, protectionism, restriction on competition, security services, transport regulations

C 301 E/234

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The data are available for 1992-2001 and are being sent directly to the honourable Member as well as to
the Parliament Secretariat-General.

(2002/C 301 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1817/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Investigations into the international trade in animals used in experiments

On 31 May 2002 a case of cruelty to animals was uncovered on the Brenner Pass motorway. A small lorry
was carrying 56 beagle puppies under unacceptable conditions (cid:1) the animals had neither food nor water
and were being transported in cages which were much too small. The puppies came from Reggio Emilia
and were intended for use in experiments to be carried out by a toxicological
institute in Hamburg.
Following a wave of public sympathy homes have now been found for the puppies with families.

In Germany and in other countries there are many such institutes which carry out animal experiments,
although it is not always clear whether the laboratories and institutes comply with the relevant legal
provisions.

Could the European Commission please investigate the Hamburg Laboratory of Pharmacology and
Toxicology KG (D-21134 Hamburg) and check that its activities are lawful?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

According to Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States on the protection of animals used for
experimental and other scientific purposes (1) the control of laboratories carrying out animal experiments is
the responsibility of the national authorities. The Commission has so far not received any indication that
the German authorities do not sufficiently control the laboratory in question. The Commission also has no
indication that
the laboratory do not comply with the requirements of Directive
86/609/EEC.

the activities of

Therefore, the Commission considers that there is currently no basis for a Commission investigation.
However, the Commission would be grateful for information about possible infringements of the Directive
in above context, which the Honorable Member may have.

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986.

(2002/C 301 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1820/02

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against European companies by the United States Aviation Security Act (S1447)

Can the Commission indicate what action it intends to take against the United States in regard to the
discrimination that is being practised against European companies by the US Aviation Security Act
(S1447)? Further, what pressure is the Commission exerting on the US Government to reinstate the

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/235

liability cap for aviation security companies and would it consider retaliatory action against US-owned
companies should the US administration fail to act to end this blatant anti-European policy?

(2002/C 301 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/02

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 July 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against the European security industry in the USA by the new US Aviation Act and

Transportation Security Act

In response to the attacks of 11 September 2001, the US administration promptly (cid:1) on 19 November
2001 (cid:1) adopted the US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act. The US administration has
nationalised all private security firms operating in the aviation sector. Security checks are for the time
being to be carried out by federal enterprises, but in future only by State enterprises and possibly security
firms based in the USA. As a result, private businesses from the European Union (including Securitas,
Securicor and ICTS) can no longer operate in the USA, which manifestly constitutes discrimination against
the European security industry.

Moreover, the US administration has abolished the insurance liability cap (i.e. limitation of liability on
condition that insurance is taken out) for European security firms and declared it applicable only to
American businesses. In the event of a fresh terrorist attack, European security firms will therefore bear full
liability, with all the associated financial consequences, whereas US firms will be partially covered by
insurance.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

If so, does the Commission regard the US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act as discriminatory
against the European security industry?

If so, what steps will the Commission take in relation to the USA to remedy the situation?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1820/02 and P-2080/02
given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 August 2002)

Following the events of September 11 the United States (US) authorities passed new legislation on aviation
security entitled the US Aviation and Transportation Security Act.

The act removes the liability cap for aviation security companies, while leaving it for adjacent activities.

After a period of nationalised operation of the sector, Section 108 of the act permits private companies to
undertake security screening at airports on the condition that ‘the private screening company is owned and
controlled by a citizen of the United States’.

Under its commitment to opening world markets in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS)
the United States has signed up to full market access in the field of security services (with specific
exceptions for the states of Maine and New York).

Therefore, it would appear that the new US legislation does conflict with these commitments taken by the
United States under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).