LWhen a European Union (EU) directive is adopted, it is intended to be transposed into the national law of each Member State. The legislative work then consists of verifying the new provisions with regard to positive law and modifying the regulatory and legislative framework accordingly.
France, like other EU states, tends not to limit itself to integrating the requirements of the directive into its national law and to resort to a practice described as “overtransposition”, which consists of increasing the constraints to which are subject to companies. This practice of overtransposition is the subject of strong criticism from professional circles, particularly agricultural ones. The complaints relate to its legitimacy and its consequences in terms of competitiveness.
For the representatives of the agricultural protest, overtransposition would signify the domination of the cities over the countryside. Respect for biodiversity would take precedence over respect for the farming world. However, if biodiversity is indeed an element taken into consideration, overtransposition pursues a primary goal: the preservation of the health of workers and their families.
By way of illustration, the French regulations on wood dust likely to cause respiratory damage, based on the conclusions of a report from the National Institute of Health and Medical Research in 2001, strengthens European regulations by retaining a professional exposure limit value five times lower than the European standard.
By doing so, the administration complies with the case law of the Council of State, according to which it is up to the administration to revise the reference limit values in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge and available information. Failing this, the Council can hold the State responsible, based on deficiencies in the prevention of professional risks, as was the case for the prevention of risks linked to the exposure of workers to asbestos dust.
Strict interpretation
It is for this reason that the Ministry of Labor considers that compliance with exposure values must always be considered as a minimum objective for preventing worker health. Regulations relating to machine safety are part of the same reasoning. The designer of a machine must prevent any “reasonably foreseeable misuse”, which gives rise to a strict interpretation on the part of the administrative authorities in order to avoid the occurrence of a serious or fatal accident.
You have 55% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.