European law report - More liquid security
Since the ban on carrying liquids on board planes came into force, most of us have experienced at some point in time the inconvenience caused by this EU rule. Thousands of litres of alcohol, perfumes and other liquids have been confiscated in EU...
Since the ban on carrying liquids on board planes came into force, most of us have experienced at some point in time the inconvenience caused by this EU rule. Thousands of litres of alcohol, perfumes and other liquids have been confiscated in EU airports.
It seems that relief from such inconvenience may not be too far away. The European Parliament has recently voted in favour of new rules which impose new security measures which must be undertaken by the member states both on board planes and at airports.
Indeed, the EU's regulatory framework for aviation security has received a radical overhaul. This new law provides for certain common basic security standards, such as screening of passengers and cabin baggage, screening of hold baggage, access control and aircraft security checks which must be applied across the EU. Member states are, however, free to apply more stringent measures provided that such measures are relevant, objective, non-discriminatory and proportional to the risk that is being addressed.
The proposed law has also embraced the concept of one-stop security checks. Passengers arriving from third countries with equivalent aviation security standards to the EU have been spared additional checks.
This new law also addresses for the first time ever at an EU level, in-flight security measures, such as access to cockpits, unruly passengers and the deployment of so-called "sky marshals" on intra-Community flights. However, the choice as to whether or not to deploy in-flight security officers and whether such officers should carry weapons on planes has been left up to the individual member states. On the other hand, if a member state decides to deploy sky marshals it is obliged to ensure that such officers are specially selected and trained.
One fundamental question has, however, been left unanswered. Who shall foot the bill for such additional security measures? Shall these be borne by the national governments or directly or indirectly by the passengers themselves? Unfortunately, the proposed law leaves considerable discretion in the hands of the national governments themselves as to which circumstances and to what extent the costs of security measures should be borne by the state, the airport entities, air carriers, other responsible agencies, or users.
However, the Commission has been endowed with the task of producing by latest December 31, 2008, a common formula for calculating these costs in order to improve their transparency, as well as to propose steps to ensure that any additional security charges are used exclusively to meet security costs.
It is undisputed that in the light of the ongoing terrorist threat, security measures are indispensable.
A delicate balance must, however, be found between excessive inconvenience and costs for passengers and peace of mind for individual passengers as well as for the public at large. These new rules have been enacted with the precise objective of allowing more flexibility while at the same time ensuring that passengers' safety remains uncompromised at all times. Their enactment could hopefully lead to a progressive lifting of more inconvenient and highly unpopular security measures such as the current ban on large volumes of liquids on board planes.
• Dr Vella Cardona is a freelance consultant in EU, intellectual property and competition law. She is also a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta.
It seems that relief from such inconvenience may not be too far away. The European Parliament has recently voted in favour of new rules which impose new security measures which must be undertaken by the member states both on board planes and at airports.
Indeed, the EU's regulatory framework for aviation security has received a radical overhaul. This new law provides for certain common basic security standards, such as screening of passengers and cabin baggage, screening of hold baggage, access control and aircraft security checks which must be applied across the EU. Member states are, however, free to apply more stringent measures provided that such measures are relevant, objective, non-discriminatory and proportional to the risk that is being addressed.
The proposed law has also embraced the concept of one-stop security checks. Passengers arriving from third countries with equivalent aviation security standards to the EU have been spared additional checks.
This new law also addresses for the first time ever at an EU level, in-flight security measures, such as access to cockpits, unruly passengers and the deployment of so-called "sky marshals" on intra-Community flights. However, the choice as to whether or not to deploy in-flight security officers and whether such officers should carry weapons on planes has been left up to the individual member states. On the other hand, if a member state decides to deploy sky marshals it is obliged to ensure that such officers are specially selected and trained.
One fundamental question has, however, been left unanswered. Who shall foot the bill for such additional security measures? Shall these be borne by the national governments or directly or indirectly by the passengers themselves? Unfortunately, the proposed law leaves considerable discretion in the hands of the national governments themselves as to which circumstances and to what extent the costs of security measures should be borne by the state, the airport entities, air carriers, other responsible agencies, or users.
However, the Commission has been endowed with the task of producing by latest December 31, 2008, a common formula for calculating these costs in order to improve their transparency, as well as to propose steps to ensure that any additional security charges are used exclusively to meet security costs.
It is undisputed that in the light of the ongoing terrorist threat, security measures are indispensable.
A delicate balance must, however, be found between excessive inconvenience and costs for passengers and peace of mind for individual passengers as well as for the public at large. These new rules have been enacted with the precise objective of allowing more flexibility while at the same time ensuring that passengers' safety remains uncompromised at all times. Their enactment could hopefully lead to a progressive lifting of more inconvenient and highly unpopular security measures such as the current ban on large volumes of liquids on board planes.
• Dr Vella Cardona is a freelance consultant in EU, intellectual property and competition law. She is also a visiting lecturer at the University of Malta.