Common Position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security COMMON GUIDELINES Consultation deadline for Bulgaria and Romania:11 December 2006

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

DRAFT STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL'S REASONS

I. Introduction

In September 2005 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council Regulation replacing

Regulation (EC) N° 2320/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing

1

common rules in the field of civil aviation security . That Regulation, which had been drafted and adopted in response to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 in the United States, has

been in force since January 2003. The replacement of Regulation 2320/2002 with a new text

is considered necessary because its application has given rise to a number of implementation

problems.

On 15 June 2006, the European Parliament adopted its opinion at first reading,

containing 85 amendments.

The Council seriously examined the possibility of reaching an agreement with the European

Parliament at first reading on the text of the draft Regulation. During informal contacts with

representatives of the European Parliament, it appeared however that the issue of financing

the security measures would need to be studied more carefully in order to arrive at a text that

would be acceptable to all parties. The Council therefore decided to adopt a common position,

taking account as much as possible of the amendments by the European Parliament at first

reading, and to seek an agreement with the European Parliament at a later stage.

II. Analysis of the Common Position

The Council was able to agree on the main lines of the Commission proposal. On some

points, however, the Council decided to modify the text, generally in order to make it clearer,

simpler and easier to understand.

The most significant changes made by the Council to the Commission's proposal were in the

two areas identified below:

1

OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 1.

Firstly, with respect to comitology, the Council took into account the new rules which were

1

adopted by the Council in July 2006 . The new regulatory procedure with scrutiny introduced by these new rules, which gives greater powers to the European Parliament, is foreseen in

Articles 4(3) and 9(2) of the draft Regulation. Article 4(3) relates to the criteria under which

Member States may derogate from the general standards for small airports or small aircrafts.

Article 9(2) specifies the standards applicable to Member States' national quality control

programmes.

Secondly, Article 5(2) allows Member States to apply stricter national measures than those

contained in the Regulation. Given the issues at stake, the gravity of the various security

threats and the fast-changing circumstances surrounding these threats, the Council took the

view that Member States should have a sufficient margin of manoeuvre to impose any

additional or special measures they judge necessary. Such measures should not, in the opinion

of the Council, require special justification at Community level.

With regard to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament, the Council was able to

accept, entirely or partially, the following 46 amendments:

2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23-30, 33, 34, 37, 40, 45-49, 51, 53-58, 65-68, 73, 77-

79, 82 and 84.

However, the Council was unable to accept a number of other amendments. Chief among

these are amendments 3, 35, 43 and 44 on the financing of security arrangements under the

Regulation. The Council holds that it is inappropriate for a technical regulation such as the

one at hand to contain requirements or obligations on financing. The principle of subsidiarity

dictates that such questions be addressed at national level.

1

OJ L 200, 22.7.2006, p. 11.

A number of other amendments were not accepted, or were partially not accepted, because

they extended the scope of the Regulation beyond the security objectives which it is designed

to meet. This is the case notably for amendments 6, 9, 19, 36, 45, 57, 80 and 85. Amendments

1, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 31, 32, 33, 50, 52, 60, 63, 72 and 74 were not accepted, wholly or

partially, on the grounds that they contradicted other parts of the draft Regulation, did not add

any substantive meaning to the text or were not in line with accepted terminology on aviation

security. Lastly, amendments 20, 21, 38, 39, 41, 42, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76 and 83

were not accepted, wholly or partially, as the Council is of the opinion that they either contain

too great a level of detail for a Regulation of this type or are incompatible with the

Community's institutional arrangements or contain provisions which would prove impractical

to implement, either by Member States or the economic operators concerned.

III. Conclusion

The Council submits that the text of its common position is appropriate and balanced. The

Council is of the opinion that the common position reflects the aims behind the majority of

the Parliament's amendments.

The Council would like to underline the great effort which has gone into securing early

agreement on this Regulation and trusts that the common position will allow for early

adoption of the legislation in due course.

_______________

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie