Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union.
Date: 2002-12-10
45.  It follows from the Court's case-law that partial annulment of a decision is possible if the elements whose annulment is sought may be severed from the remainder of the decision (see, to that effect, Case 17/74   Transocean Marine Paint   v   Commission   [1974] ECR 1063, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases C-68/94 and C-30/95   France and Others   v   Commission   [1998] ECR I-1375, paragraph 256). That is the situation in the present case.
46.  The elements whose omission would render the decision unlawful are not, by definition, set out therein and are accordingly separable from its provisions. The annulment of the third paragraph of the declaration for failure to refer to certain articles of the Convention would in no way affect the legal scope of the provisions on which the Council has already taken a view. Such an annulment therefore would not alter the substance of the contested decision. Accordingly, those elements may be severed from the remainder of the contested decision.
47.  In those circumstances, the fact that the declaration is an integral part of the contested decision does not preclude annulment of that declaration in so far as it fails to refer to the Community's competences in the fields covered by the Convention.
48.  As regards the relationship between the second and third paragraphs of the declaration, these correspond to the second and third types of information to be declared under Article 30(4)(iii) of the Convention.
49.  By the words   "which articles ... apply"  , that provision refers to all the articles which are legally binding on a contracting party, including articles which do not create either rights or obligations and in respect of which the question of the competence of the regional organisation therefore does not arise. On the other hand, by requiring that organisation to indicate   "the extent of its competence"  , Article 30(4)(iii) of the Convention seeks to ensure that it communicates to the depositary, and thus to the other parties to the Convention, both the fields covered by the Convention in which it has competence to fulfil the obligations and exercise the rights which flow from it and the extent of that competence.
50.  If consideration of the present application were to indicate that the Council failed to mention in the third paragraph of the declaration certain articles which are also not mentioned in the second paragraph thereof, it would imply that the second paragraph is also incomplete. Nevertheless, the relationship between the two paragraphs is not such as to preclude the legality of the two elements from being reviewed independently of one another.
51.  Accordingly, the second plea of inadmissibility must also be rejected.
The third plea of inadmissibility alleging that the Commission is seeking an opinion
Arguments of the Council
69.  In addition, it follows from the duty of sincere cooperation between the institutions (see,   inter alia  , Case C-65/93   Parliament   v   Council   [1995] ECR I-643, paragraph 23) that the Council decision approving accession to an international convention must enable the Commission to comply with international law.
72.  The parties to the dispute agree that the Community possesses competences, shared with the Member States, to take:
─  pursuant to Article 15 of the Convention, the appropriate steps to ensure that in all operational states the radiation exposure to the workers and the public caused by a nuclear installation be kept as low as reasonably achievable and that no individual be exposed to radiation doses which exceed prescribed national dose limits;
─  pursuant to Article 16(2) of the Convention, the appropriate steps to ensure that, in so far as they are likely to be affected by a radiological emergency, its own population and the competent authorities of the States in the vicinity of the nuclear installation are provided with appropriate information for emergency planning and response.
76.  It must also take into account the fact that Title II, Chapter 3, of the Euratom Treaty implements Article 2(b) of that Treaty, which instructs the Community to   "establish uniform safety standards to protect the health of workers and of the general public and [to] ensure that they are applied"  . On the one hand, it is apparent that such protection cannot be achieved without controlling the sources of harmful radiation. On the other, the Community's activities in the field of health protection must observe the competences of the Member States defined,   inter alia  , in Title II, Chapter 3, of the Euratom Treaty itself.
78.  In order to give practical effect to the provisions in Title II, Chapter 3, of the Euratom Treaty, the Court has interpreted them broadly on several occasions.
79.  In its judgment in Case 187/87   Saarland and Others  [1988] ECR 5013, paragraph 11, in a case where the main proceedings concerned the Cattenom nuclear power station (France), the Court held that the provisions of the chapter of the Euratom Treaty entitled   "Health and safety"   form a coherent whole conferring on the Commission powers of some considerable scope in order to protect the population and the environment against the risks of nuclear contamination. In the light of the purpose of Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty, which is to forestall any possibility of radioactive contamination, the Court drew attention to the importance of the role played in the matter by the Commission, which has a unique overview of developments in the nuclear power industry throughout the territory of the Community (Saarland and Others  ,  cited above, paragraphs 12 and 13). On the basis of that consideration, it rejected the argument that general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste could be provided to the Commission only after such disposal had been authorised by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned (Saarland and Others  ,  cited above, paragraph 20).
80.  In its judgment in Case C-70/88   Parliament   v   Council   [1991] ECR I-4529, paragraph 14, which concerned Council Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/87 of 22 December 1987 laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination of foodstuffs and of feedingstuffs following a nuclear accident or any other case of radiological emergency (OJ 1987 L 371, p. 11), the Court refused to uphold the restrictive interpretation of Article 30 et seq. of the Euratom Treaty proposed by the Parliament. It held that the purpose of those articles was to ensure consistent and effective protection of the health of the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiations,   "whatever their source"  .
88.  Article 7 of the Convention is part of Chapter 2(b) thereof, entitled   "Legislation and regulation"  . It requires the establishment of a legislative and regulatory framework to govern the safety of nuclear installations.
89.  Even though the Euratom Treaty does not grant the Community competence to authorise the construction or operation of nuclear installations, under Articles 30 to 32 of the Euratom Treaty the Community possesses legislative competence to establish, for the purpose of health protection, an authorisation system which must be applied by the Member States. Such a legislative act constitutes a measure supplementing the basic standards referred to in that article.
105.  The measures required by Articles 18 and 19 of the Convention concerning the design, construction and operation of nuclear installations can be the subject of the provisions which the Member States lay down to ensure, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty, compliance with the basic standards. However, the Commission has competence to make recommendations for harmonising those provisions, as is clear from the second paragraph of Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty, interpreted in the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 75 to 83 of the present judgment. The Member States are required to assist in drawing up those recommendations through the communications referred to in the third paragraph of Article 33 of the Euratom Treaty.