Martin wrote:
alioth wrote:
On the other hand the term “European Union” has a very definite meaning and doesn’t really need any introduction in the ANO.Because you are used to it.
That’s how language works: we all agree on what a word means and get on with our lives. “European Union” needs no introduction because it’s well defined and everyone agrees what is included in “European Union”. However, the bareword “Community” could mean anything. “Community” needs further definition to have meaning in this context, because on its own it could mean anything from the village that I live in all the way to EU+EEA+Switzerland+Timbuktu. Also the bareword “operator” needs some definition because on its own its ambiguous. There’s no ambiguity as to what “European Union” means, though. It’s not a question of being used to it at all, if an alien came from Wolf 359 and could read human language, it would take them all of two minutes to find out the definitive list of countries in the European Union.
Nope.
The European Union was established in 1993, but at that point was a superset of several European Communities, the most important one the European [Economic] Community, which at that time was renamed simply “European Community”.
In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon then completely merged these into the EC and renamed the whole thing the European Union, and the European Union is the legal successor of the European Community. Lisbon Treaty Article 2:
The Union shall replace and succeed the European Community
Legislation between 1993 and 2009 use the word “Community”, and the EASA basic regulation is titled “Regulation (EC) No 216/2008”, where EC stands for European Community – newer regulations are titled (EU).
It is completely crystal clear that “Community” in the context of European legislation means “European Union” now.
As a regulation, EASA regulations are immediately applicable law in all EU countries. Non-EU countries adopt them via two means (a) a treaty and (b) local legislation, which says explicitly what “Community” means, or how this is to be interpreted locally. They typically say that "or in XXX’ is to be inserted after “Community”. This is, to my knowledge, the way Switzerland does it.
Cobalt wrote:
Non-EU countries adopt them via two means (a) a treaty and (b) local legislation, which says explicitly what “Community” means, or how this is to be interpreted locally. They typically say that "or in XXX’ is to be inserted after “Community”. This is, to my knowledge, the way Switzerland does it.
The last time I had this discussion, I checked it for Switzerland, and found that while the international treaty may contain such a provision, there is no blanket statement in any Swiss national law that says you have to supplement “and Switzerland” everywhere where it says “community”. On the contrary, when you check the implementing law (German version) for the Basic Regulation, then it specifically states that in Article 54, the term “community” is not to apply to Switzerland, and then it goes on to say where this is supposed to be the case – basically only in Article 9. So the infamous Article 4 1. c) (the “screw N reg provision”) is not to be applied in Switzerland as far as I can see.
In cases other than for the Basic Regulation, there often is no special Swiss implementing law at all. There is a common committee that meets regularly, who decide which regulations are to apply when in Switzerland. Their decisions have to be acknowledged by the Swiss Federal Council and thus become law, but they just reference the EU regulation number and the date and that’s it. Even if in the international treaty between the EU and Switzerland it says somewhere that Community shall mean Switzerland, that would not be enough to bind a citizen by this. It’s really sloppy technique and if I ever need to get my head out of an EU regulation in Switzerland, I would use that as my defense.
Peter wrote:
I think this is done to death now, LeSving.
Actually no, and probably never will (not according to EASA). I sent an email to EASA directly asking what is meant by this particular regulation (Part NCO IDE.A.120 b and c). I also included all the different interpretations from this thread. This is the answer I got (after a couple of working days, so they react fast), my emphasis.
Thank you for your e-mail.
Although EASA is responsible for drafting common rules in the domain of air operations, the implementation and interpretation of those rules is the exclusive prerogative of the EU Member States. As your enquiry relates to the implementation of the Air Operations Regulation, we kindly invite you to address it to the Civil Aviation Authority of your country.
Furthermore, we would like to inform you that there is a Frequently Asked Questions page (https://easa.europa.eu/the-agency/faqs/air-operations), available on the EASA website, where you can find the most common queries regarding the Air Operations regulation.
We remain at your disposal.
Best Regards,
I didn’t know that, implementation – yes, but interpretation? Isn’t that what AMC and GM is for? For the record, I did not ask for an interpretation by EASA. I asked what the meaning of the regulation was (you don’t just make regulations for the sake of making regulations). Somehow I didn’t expect an answer that simply say “we have no clue, and we don’t care”.
Cobalt wrote:
In 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon then completely merged these into the EC
That’s not really true. EURATOM is still separate. ECSC (Coal and Steel) wasn’t really merged with EC, that treaty expired (I believe it was the Treaty of Paris; it was the first community in this context and started the whole thing); the Treaty of Nice dealt with that. Renaming of EEC to EC was done by Treaty of Maastricht which also established the EU as such. Originally, the EU had three pillars – the communities, Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Police and Judical Co-operation in Criminal Matters (PJCCM) (I admit I had to look up the names). The Treaty of Lisbon merged EC, CFSP and PJCCM and made the EU a legal person (by that time ECSC was no more and EURATOM stayed separate).
Also notice in that quote the use of the Union instead of the European Union, just as they use the Community instead of the European Community. Anyway, Basic Regulation references the Treaty of Rome, literally it says “Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 80(2) thereof,” so it’s quite clear which community they mean. You might have noticed that there are references to the Treaty in that regulation following the same pattern.
It’s kind of funny considering the UK joined “the Community” in the seventies yet they apparently don’t know what it is. But the Union, which is about 35 years younger, that one they know. 
PS: alioth, you’ll like this one: a Community operator (it’s also in the Article 4).
Rwy20 wrote:
On the contrary, when you check the implementing law (German version) for the Basic Regulation, then it specifically states that in Article 54, the term “community” is not to apply to Switzerland, and then it goes on to say where this is supposed to be the case – basically only in Article 9. So the infamous Article 4 1. c) (the “screw N reg provision”) is not to be applied in Switzerland as far as I can see.
That’s interesting (especially the part about Article 9) and good to know. But I’m assuming that law considers Switzerland a Member State (otherwise there would be quite a few empty statements). Which would seem like a conflict (if it’s indeed the case). I never understood why they mix these two (at least in Article 4, they could completely avoid using the Community; although I guess it can be handy).
LeSving wrote:
I didn’t know that, implementation – yes, but interpretation? Isn’t that what AMC and GM is for?
AMC/ GM is there to help but even that is interpreted, as is any text.
LeSving wrote:
For the record, I did not ask for an interpretation by EASA. I asked what the meaning of the regulation was (you don’t just make regulations for the sake of making regulations). Somehow I didn’t expect an answer that simply say “we have no clue, and we don’t care”.
Perhaps they misunderstood you. If you quoted bunch of text, the message could get lost. And asking too specifically about equipment leads to interpretation. They have a form where you can pose a rule making related questions and specify the paragraph the question relates to so they can give it to the appropriate person. And I would be brief (like why flight path instead of attitude). I wouldn’t unload on them a bunch of interpretations from this thread – because I would be losing my will to live if I was on the receiving end of such queries (so it could be a polite “get lost, be someone else’s problem” message).
Martin wrote:
If you quoted bunch of text, the message could get lost. And asking too specifically about equipment leads to interpretation
No, it was rather simple. What is “other instruments”, what is “flight path” and what is the meaning (in a bit more words along with interpretations). It’s interesting they mean interpretation is the exclusive prerogative of each member state. This will make the regulations mean slightly different from place to place, more along with each member state’s old regulations.
A bit more words huh? Maybe that’s why they didn’t understand.
Did you mention towing gliders in 90kt headwind?
The reply from EASA is standard. EASA is indeed not empowered to interpret law. That is up to courts, ultimately the European Court of Justice. On a number of opportunities to offer feedback I’ve commented that this is a weakness of “the EASA System” as it leads to harmful uncertainty. But it’s a fundamental principle of EU law.
bookworm wrote:
The reply from EASA is standard. EASA is indeed not empowered to interpret law. That is up to courts, ultimately the European Court of Justice. On a number of opportunities to offer feedback I’ve commented that this is a weakness of “the EASA System” as it leads to harmful uncertainty. But it’s a fundamental principle of EU law.
Interesting. It does indeed lead to uncertainty, but when thinking about it, I guess it’s the way most legal systems are. It’s just that Part NCO is not law in Norway, it’s regulation. Nothing there has been made by the parliament, thus nothing for the court to interpret (other than the actual laws referenced). I guess the answer from EASA is 100% correct, but very weird, since this is not law, and LT is free to interpret it any way they chose. There is this EFTA court of course, but who in their right mind would take it there?
