Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security  COM(2005) 429 final — 2005/0191 (COD)
Date: 2006-04-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, European standard, air safety, civil aviation, fight against crime, terrorism

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/17

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

COM(2005) 429 final — 2005/0191 (COD)

(2006/C 185/03)

On 16 November 2005 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 24 March 2006. The rapporteur
was Mr McDonogh.

At its 426th plenary session, held on 20 and 21 April 2006 (meeting of 20 April), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 134 votes to two.

1. Recommendations

tial employees,
ground checks.

in order to meet the requirements of back-

1.1 Member States should be allowed, on the basis of a risk
assessment, to apply more stringent measures than those to be
laid down, under the condition that they finance them with
their national budgets.

1.2
Each Member State should designate a single authority
responsible for the coordination and monitoring of the imple-
mentation of security standards.

Each Member State should draw up a national civil avia-

1.3
tion security programme.

In order to monitor the application by Member States of
1.4
the new act, and also to identify weak points in aviation
security, the Commission should conduct inspections, including
unannounced inspections.

1.5
For the purpose of allowing transfer passengers and
transfer baggage to be exempted from screening when arriving
on a flight
from a third country, which is known as the
concept of ‘one stop security’ as well as for allowing passengers
arriving on such a flight
to mix with screened departing
passengers, it is appropriate to encourage agreements between
the Community and with third countries, recognising that the
security standards applied in the third country are equivalent to
Community standards.

The Committee welcomes the initiative of the Commis-
the

1.6
sion and fully supports the fundamental principles of
proposal.

1.7
It welcomes also the introduction of common rules for
airport security, as procedures vary very much across Europe,
and it is important that these should be standardised.

The objective outlined in paragraph 1 of this Article
1.9
should be amended to clarify that
the security measures
concerned are designed to protect civil aviation from acts of
unlawful interference that jeopardise the safety of civil aviation.
The measures concerned are not for addressing other types of
unlawful interference such as theft and smuggling.

The European Commission should draw up and imple-
1.10
ment a comprehensive policy for financing aviation security
measures that form part of Member States' national security
duty to protect their citizens from the threat of terrorism.

1.11
A mechanism for assessing the impact on the industry
of every future proposal for security measure should be added
to this regulation. This will ensure that the cost and the impact
of a given measure are not disproportionately high compared
to its efficiency.

2. Introduction

2.1
The European Commission's legislative proposal aims to
clarify the European Union's legal framework (established by
existing Regulation 2320/2002),
to provide a basis for a
common interpretation of the international requirements laid
to
down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation,
remove sensitive information from the public arena and to
place further emphasis on developing requirements in civil
aviation security through implementing Regulation, i.e. by use
of Decision 1999/468/EC on comitology which establishes a
legislative decision-making process involving representatives of
the EU Member States and the European Commission.

1.8
Considering annex Part 1 1.2 point 5 and part 11, in
light of the freedom of movement of labour within the Com-
munity and the availability of labour from third countries, can
the Commission offer
authorities,
assistance
airports, airlines, etc. to validate personal information of poten-

to national

The proposal seeks to replace the existing regulation in
2.2
order to bring forward better legislation, based on four princi-
ples, that of simplification, harmonisation, clarification, and
enhancing the levels of security.

C 185/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.8.2006

3. General comments

officers (sky marshals). The Committee would not recommend
the use of sky marshals except in exceptional circumstances.

The objective of this proposal is to clarify, simplify and
3.1
harmonise further the legal requirements with the aim of
enhancing the overall security in civil aviation.

Experience over time has shown that the regulation is

3.2
too detailed and is in need of simplification.

the
3.3 Whilst recognising the principle of subsidiarity,
Commission is of the view that a greater degree of harmonisa-
tion than currently exists of security measures and procedures
is desirable.

3.4
This has resulted in 25 national systems being in place
and a consequential potential distortion of competition and the
inability of industry to benefit from the freedoms of the Single
Market.

3.5
Increased harmonisation is also an integral element of
‘one stop security’, the concept whereby transfer and transit
passengers, bags and cargo need not be re-screened since there
is confidence that baseline levels of security were met at the
original departing airport. Again, this is an element that is of
benefit to operators acting in a highly competitive market as
well as to passengers.

for

The requirement

security programmes

3.11
reflects
current best practice in the aviation sector, and, as such, is not
a significant burden on industry or administrations. For Com-
munity carriers they should be approved by the carrier's
national authorities and be mutually recognised by the other
Member States and regulators.

3.12
Article 13 lays down an obligation for each Member
State to undertake compliance monitoring activities by means
of a national quality control programme.

3.13
alia, Community airports.

Article 14 allows for Commission inspections of inter

3.14
Article 17 replaces the existing Article 10 on security
of flights from third countries. It foresees agreements between
the Community and third countries that would allow for the
possibility of passengers, bags, and cargo transferring at Com-
munity airports without the need for re-screening and/or addi-
tional security controls.

3.15
This objective should be achieved by setting common
rules and common standards on aviation security as well as
mechanisms for monitoring compliance.

3.6
The Commission is of the view that the ability to (re)act
swiftly in the light of risks that are constantly evolving over
time is of major significance to improve the overall levels of
security.

3.16
The content of Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 should
be revised in the light of the experience gained, and the Regu-
lation itself should be replaced by a new act seeking the simpli-
fication, harmonisation, and clarification of the existing rules
and the improvement of the levels of security.

3.7
In the view of the Commission, it is not desirable to
have detailed security measures and procedures placed in the
public domain. By placing operational details in implementing
legislation, this issue can be addressed. The Committee would
like to stress the importance that these new common rules take
account of the specificities of persons with reduced mobility in
line with the recommendations made by the recent Commit-
tee's opinion on the issue. Security checks and other security
related measures, while legitimate and necessary, may create
further barriers and limit the rights of people with reduced
mobility, which would be against recent Commission efforts to
guarantee disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility
equal opportunities in air travel compared to the rest of the
population.

Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the European Parlia-
3.8
ment and of the Council establishes common rules in the field
of civil aviation security. The proposal seeks to replace this
legislative act.

3.9
Thus, Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 would be replaced
by a simplified, clearer regulation laying down general princi-
ples.

3.10
The only additional competence sought relates to rules
for in-flight security measures. It covers such diverse topics as
access to the cockpit, unruly passengers, and in-flight security

3.17
Given the need for more flexibility in adopting security
measures and procedures in order to meet evolving risk assess-
ments and to allow new technologies to be introduced, the new
act should lay down the basic principles of what has to be
done in order
to safeguard civil aviation against acts of
unlawful interference.

3.18
The new act should cover security measures that apply
on board an aircraft, or during a flight, of Community air
carriers.

4. Specific comments

The following should be considered when implementing legisla-
tion

4.1
It is important that common standards are set in relation
to prohibited articles so as to avoid confusion and disputes at
security search.

4.2
The term ‘continuous random’ is used in the Annex of
the proposed Regulation, but is not defined. Inserting a defini-
tion of continuous random is essential
in order to assure a
uniform interpretation across Europe of this principle when it
is applied to security checks.

8.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 185/19

4.3 More stringent measures should only be introduced in
response to specific terrorist threats identified by the Member
State authority through risk assessment. The introduction of
more stringent measures contradicts the goals of harmonising
aviation security measures across the European Union and of
establishing a one stop security area. Any additional deterrent
or preventative security measures henceforth required by the
Member State must be concluded in full consultation with the
airport operator and the Member State concerned must pay for
the additional security measures as part of the government
national security duty to protect
its citizens from acts of
terrorism.

4.4
Some airlines do not allow steel cutlery e.g. knives and
forks, while others do, standardisation among all air carriers
should be encouraged.

4.5 While scissors, nail files etc. are prohibited items, glass
bottles are allowed on. These are deadly weapons, particularly
when broken. It is suggested that all duty free and all bottles
carried on an aircraft are plastic. Otherwise, they should be
stored in the hold of the aircraft with the rest of the baggage.
level before
This will need to be agreed on an international
implementation.

4.6
It is important that rescue equipment like the fire extin-
guisher and safety axe are secured in a crew locker, and that
passengers do not have ready access to these.

Brussels, 20 April 2006

4.7
Airlines should use reinforced containers for luggage
where possible, to protect against a bomb blast like on El Al
airlines.

4.8
In the interest of security, there should be close moni-
toring by national authorities in relation to the amount of
drink that can be served to passengers that cause drink-related
security incidents.

4.9 While access to the flight deck is protected by a rein-
forced door, a hijacker could gain access through the flimsy
toilet wall which is often situated next to the flight deck. This
would need to be reinforced.

4.10
who often supplies security.

Article 11 should include Airline and Handling Agent

4.11
Considering Annex Part 11, all security instructors
should be trained at approved training facilities, e.g. the Euro-
pean Security Training Institute (EASTI), in order to standardise
the presentation of ICAO Security Training Modules. National
authorities should be required to establish National Training
Programmes with EASTI qualified instructors.

Considering Annex Part 4 4.3 (with the increase in the
4.12
number of deportees etc.) there should be a requirement for
the national authority to set a period of minimum notice for
carriers/airport/flight crews to prepare for the proposed trans-
port of potentially disruptive passengers where this will involve
a scheduled commercial flight.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND