WRITTEN QUESTION P-2080/02 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission. Discrimination against the European security industry in the USA by the new US Aviation Act and Transportation Security Act.
Date: 2002-07-08
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

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).

C 301 E/236

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

The Commission in the first instance will contact the US authorities to seek a solution to this issue. It is,
therefore, not appropriate to envisage retaliatory action at this stage of proceedings.

The Commission is in regular contact with the European providers of security services, and will continue
consult both on the issue of discrimination on the access to the US security market once this market is
again being opened to private operators, and on the efforts to have the liability cap for security operators
re-instated.

(2002/C 301 E/250)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1825/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Biomedical primate research

The Commission has stated that the use of non-human primates in research is a ‘sensitive matter’ and is
aware of the high level of public concern about the use of these animals in laboratory research,
in
particular at the Biomedical Primate Research Centre in Rijswijk, Netherlands.

The Dutch Government Minister for Education, Culture and Science has admitted that ‘there is no longer
any reason to perform experiments on chimpanzees in the Netherlands’ and that they are ‘putting an end
to those experiments’.

In light of the above, and in view of the Commission’s current review of Directive 86/609/EEC (1)
concerning the use of non-human primates in research, does the Commission agree that the BPRC’s
decision to infect six chimpanzees at the Rijswijk Centre with the Hepatitis C virus later this year should be
halted until its review of the Directive has been concluded?

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of animals used for experimental
and other scientific purposes states in Article 6 that: ‘Each Member State shall designate the authority or
authorities responsible for verifying that the provisions of the Directive are properly carried out’. Article 12
states that ‘Where it is planned to subject an animal to an experiment in which it will, or may, experience
severe pain which is likely to be prolonged, that experiment must be specifically declared and justified to,
or specifically authorised by, the authority’.

Thus the decision whether to authorise the experiment on non-human primates at the Rijswijk Centre with
the Hepatitis C virus is the responsibility of the competent authorities in the Netherlands.

As far as the Commission has been informed, the decision whether or not to continue the research
activities at the BPRC on the development of an Hepatitis C vaccine which will involve the infection of six
chimpanzees is still under discussion by the authorities in the Netherlands.