Commission torn over tests

Date: 05/10/1995

By Michael Mann

THE European Commission is to write to France yet again to demand the information it still lacks on the French nuclear tests in the South Pacific - but has stepped back from censuring the authorities in Paris, threatening to take legal action or even requesting that France postpone further tests until the Commission completes its deliberations.

The lack of a firm response contradicts Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard's assertion late last week that she would bring forward a proposal this week on the applicability of Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty.

The week's developments underline the Commission's frustration that its ability to act depends entirely on the willingness of the French authorities to co-operate. With Commissioners preparing to discuss the matter in more depth at their meeting in Strasbourg next week, there are clear indications that its judicial service is convinced that even if the Commission were to proceed against France, it would have no legal precedent on which to base its case.

Senior officials are keen to stress that this week's meeting of the 20-strong Commission was a “fairly muted affair”, but there are nevertheless strong suggestions that opinion within the Commission is divided.

As Bjerregaard herself pointed out: “Of course there are different opinions or else there would have been no reason to spend a couple of hours discussing the matter.” She would not say whether there had been any strong disagreements with her Commission colleagues.

Lengthy discussions centred around an interim report from the Commission verification mission which returned from the South Pacific on Sunday, just hours before the French carried out the second of their latest batch of tests.

The report stated clearly that the three-man team had been denied access to crucial monitoring facilities at Mururoa, Fangataufa and Faaa.

Head of the Spokesman's Service Nikolaus van der Pas stressed that there had been no discussion as to whether this, in itself, constituted a breach of France's duties under the treaty. “Debate was centred on one question - is information lacking and if so, what?”

The Commission would therefore appear to be completely hamstrung, unable to make any judgement on whether it can apply Article 34 of the Euratom Treaty to prevent “particularly dangerous experiments” until additional safety measures have been taken. It must rely on information from France, which has so far not been forthcoming.

The Commission hopes to make further progress next week once its full report has been prepared, but has stressed all along that its competence on the matter is limited.

Following advice from the legal service, the Commission is aware that it would have considerable difficulty in bringing an infringement case against the French, even if it chose to do so.

To make this a realistic option, the Commission should have defined a “particularly dangerous experiment” before the recent controversy over the applicability of Article 34 arose. Bjerregaard herself underlined the difficulties which would be involved in a court challenge yesterday (4 October), saying: “We all know that a court case would take at least four years.”

One official commented: “There is the appreciation that we are on a hiding to nothing in taking the French on. The Commission will probably look at what it can do and still come out with its honour intact.”

It is clear several Commissioners are much less enthusiastic about taking a tough stance than Bjerregaard, although officials vehemently deny a split within the college.

Questioned as to whether Commission president Jacques Santer had intervened to tone down earlier communications with the French, Bjerregaard replied: “I will not deny that this is the case.”

Certainly, the overriding impression is that Bjerregaard would have liked a harder-hitting letter than many of her Commission colleagues.

The Commission must now hope that Paris furnishes at least some new information to allow it at the very least to save face and will hope that French minister for European Affairs Michel Barnier will be more forthcoming than the officials in place in the South Pacific.

EU environment ministers are due to discuss the question tomorrow (6 October), but despite political statements to the contrary, they will be aware that, as a Commission official put it: “It is inconceivable that the French will change their minds because of what happens here.”