Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)

2012 Review of Part B & TGD B – Irish Building Regulations

Posted by CJ Walsh

2012-03-02:  Please bear with me while I update you at the start of this post … rather than at the end, which would be more usual here … and logical.

[ In Ireland … a related problem, which continues to fester and cause a great nuisance in an everyday work environment … concerns the lack of proper, i.e. formal, recognition of electronic communications, and information in an electronic format, by public and private organizations … in spite of the following very clear legal text …

2000 Electronic Commerce Act (No. 27 of 2000)

Section 9 – Electronic Form not to Affect Legal Validity or Enforceability

Information (including information incorporated by reference) shall not be denied legal effect, validity or enforceability solely on the grounds that it is wholly or partly in electronic form, whether as an electronic communication or otherwise. ]

.

Yesterday afternoon (1 March 2012), we received the following e-mail communication from the Department of Environment, Community & Local Government (DECLG) …

Folks,

Could you please send me your submissions in either Microsoft Word or Excel as it it easier to copy and paste into the format that is required , it is proving rather difficult to copy from a PDF document.

Thank You

Claire Darragh, Architecture / Building Standards, DECLG.

.

I immediately replied …

Dear Claire,

Further to your informal e-mail message, which we received just a short while ago …

Please note that this is not an acknowledgement that the FireOx International Submission was received by the Department … and we certainly do not wish that you copy and paste anything relating to its contents anywhere else.

IF this is a Proper Public Consultation Process … you must adapt internal DECLG systems to suit the Submissions !   We will be communicating with the Minister’s Office concerning this issue.

Once again, I would ask you to properly acknowledge receipt of our Submission, dated 2012-02-14.

.

In connection with the original FireOx International Submission … I would also like to take this opportunity to advise you that:

  • Due to an error in ISO (International Standards Organization) … the publication of ISO 21542: ‘Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment’, on 12 December 2011, was not notified to people directly involved in its development and drafting, or to the participating national standards organizations ; 

and

  • In order to avoid the wide confusion which the term ‘Fire-Induced Progressive Collapse’ is continuing to cause at international level … the preferred term is now Fire-Induced Progressive Damage.

.

I have amended our Submission accordingly.

Kind regards.

C. J. Walsh, FireOx International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey.

.

.

2012-02-18:  The following is the text of  FireOx International’s Submission, dated 14 February 2012, to the Department of the Environment, Community & Local Government (DECLG) in Dublin … concerning the current review of the Irish Building Regulations Part B & TGD B … including, for good measure, some initial and very pertinent comments on the Irish Building Control Regulations.

None of these comments will come as any surprise to regular visitors here.

It should also be noted that the same comments are just as relevant in the case of the British (England & Wales) Building Regulations, Part B and Approved Document (AD) B !

.

Ms. Claire Darragh, Architecture & Building Standards Section, DECLG.

Dear Claire,

Thank you for this opportunity to advise the Department on some urgent and necessary improvements to Part B: ‘Fire Safety’ of the 2nd Schedule to the Building Regulations in Ireland … and its supporting Technical Guidance Document (TGD) B.

1.  Some Initial Comments

  • The continuing debacle of the Priory Hall Apartment Complex, in Donaghmede Dublin 13, is just the tip of a very large iceberg in Ireland.  Yet, when we now hear that there will be a ‘risk-based’ approach to Septic Tank Inspections, instead of an approach which involves inspecting all septic tanks … independently, competently and thoroughly … it is clear that the Minister, and senior officials in his Department, have failed to learn any lessons from ‘Priory Hall’.

What was happening on Irish construction sites during the Celtic Tiger boom years … has been happening for twenty years all over the country … more precisely, since the introduction of legal national building regulations in 1991, with NO effective building control … and, before that again, in those parts of the country outside of the major urban areas having legal building bye-laws AND effective building control, i.e. mandatory inspections by competent local authority personnel at the foundation level and drainage level of ALL projects … and, depending on the type of project, occasional or frequent inspections above ground level.

Over the years, local authority officials who carried out building bye-law inspections accumulated a considerable wealth of knowledge and understanding about local construction conditions and practices.  This valuable resource, widely used by the construction industry at the time, has now been diluted and discarded.

PLEASE LEARN THE LESSONS FROM ‘PRIORY HALL’ !!

In connection with ALL Applications for Fire Safety Certificates (Part B) and Disability Access Certificates (Part M) … competent and thorough inspections must, from now on, be carried out by local authority personnel to confirm proper implementation of Part B & M, respectively, of the 2nd Schedule to the Building Regulations.

Furthermore … while on site, local authority personnel must not be discouraged, or restricted, from dealing with any other Parts of the 2nd Schedule to the Building Regulations.  Under the present dysfunctional system, important horizontal linkages between different Parts of the 2nd Schedule are being widely disregarded and ignored, e.g. between Parts B & D, between Parts B & M, and between Parts B & A … or between Parts M & D, etc., etc !

  • European Union (EU) Council Directive 89/106/EEC has been repealed … and, instead, we now have EU Regulation No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 9 March 2011, laying down Harmonised Conditions for the Marketing of Construction Products.

Unlike the earlier EU Directive … this Regulation, applicable in all EU Member States, is binding in its entirety.

And although Annex I of EU Regulation 305/2011 will enter into force from 1 July 2013 … the Department should now prepare for, and slowly begin the process of, incorporating all of the Annex I Basic Requirements for Construction Works into the 2nd Schedule of the Irish Building Regulations.

SEE BELOW …

.

2.  Firefighter Safety

Fully consistent with Basic Requirement for Construction Works 2(e), in Annex I of EU Regulation No. 305/2011 … Revise Part B Requirement 5 to read as follows …

B5  Firefighter Safety, and Access and Facilities for the Fire Service

A building shall be so designed and constructed that the safety of firefighters is adequately considered and, in the event of an outbreak of fire, that there is adequate provision for access for fire appliances and such other facilities as may be required to assist the fire service in the protection of life and property.

Two examples of issues which should be highlighted in a relevant revision/addition to TGD B’s Guidance Text:

  • The incorporation, in building designs, of alternative safe means of approach towards the scene of a fire by firefighters ;
  • The provision of wider staircases in buildings in order to facilitate the recovery of an injured/impaired firefighter during the course of firefighting operations.

.

3.  Protection of Vulnerable Building Users from Fire

The European Union ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) on 23 December 2010.  Ireland has not yet ratified the Convention.

However … fully consistent with Ireland’s legal obligation, under Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), to co-operate fully with EU Institutions in their implementation of this UN Convention … Revise Part B Requirement 1 to read as follows …

B1  Means of Evacuation in the Event of an Outbreak of Fire

A building shall be so designed and constructed that the protection of vulnerable building users is adequately considered and, in the event of an outbreak of fire, that there are adequate and accessible means of evacuation from the building to a place of safety remote from the building, capable of being safely and effectively used.

[ Use of the word ‘escape’, in the context of emergencies, should be strongly discouraged at all times. ]

Concerning TGD B’s Guidance Text … reference to ISO 21542: ‘Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment’ will be more than sufficient.

.

Specifically relating to Adequate Protection of Vulnerable Building Users from Fire …

NOTE WELL THAT BS 9999 (AND BS 5588:PART EIGHT)  IS (ARE)  ENTIRELY UNFIT FOR PURPOSE !!

Please carefully examine the attached PDF File – My Note for the National Standards Authority of Ireland:  ‘BS 9999:2008 & BS 8300:2009 – Impacts on Accessibility Design in Ireland & Implications for ISO Accessibility & Fire Safety Standards’ , dated June 2009.

.

4.  TGD B’s Appendix A – Performance of Materials and Structures

2 Important Notes should be added to Paragraph A21 – Structural Fire Design …

  • In complying with Part B, reference should also be made to Part A of the 2nd Schedule of the Building Regulations, particularly Requirement A3 – Disproportionate Collapse ;

and

  • In order to show that a Fire Protection Material/Product/System for Structural Elements properly complies with Part D … it is also necessary, besides showing that it has been adequately fire tested, to show that the material/product/system is durable over a specified, reasonably long life cycle … and that it can adequately resist mechanical damage during construction of the building and, in the event of an outbreak of fire, during the course of that fire incident.

.

Specifically relating to Steel Structural Performance in Fire …

You should be aware that Table A1 and Table A2 are only appropriate for use by designers in the case of single, isolated steel structural elements.

In steel structural frame systems, no consideration is given in the Tables to adequate fire protection of connections … or limiting the thermal expansion (and other types of distortion) in fire of steel structural elements … in order to reduce the adverse effects of one steel element’s behaviour on the rest of the frame and/or adjoining non-loadbearing fire resisting elements of construction.

In the case of steel structural frame systems, therefore, the minimum fire protection to be afforded to ALL steel structural elements, including connections, should be 2 Hours.  Connections should also be designed and constructed to be sufficiently robust during the course of a fire incident.  This one small revision will contribute greatly towards preventing Fire-Induced Progressive Damage in buildings … a related, but different, structural concept to Disproportionate Damage …

Disproportionate Damage

The failure of a building’s structural system  (i) remote from the scene of an isolated overloading action;  and (ii) to an extent which is not in reasonable proportion to that action.

Fire-Induced Progressive Damage

The sequential growth and intensification of structural distortion and displacement, beyond fire engineering design parameters, and the eventual failure of elements of construction in a building – during a fire and the ‘cooling phase’ afterwards – which, if unchecked, will result in disproportionate damage, and may lead to total building collapse.

.

With regard to the above … please carefully examine these 2 Series of Posts on FireOx International’s Technical Blog ( www.cjwalsh.ie ), beginning on the dates indicated …

  • 2011-10-25:  NIST’s (2005) Recommendations on the 9-11 WTC Building Collapses … GROUP 1. Increased Structural Integrity – Recommendations 1, 2 & 3 (out of 30) ;

and

  • 2012-01-18:  Progressive Collapse of WTC 7 – 2008 NIST Recommendations – Part 1 of 2 … GROUP 1. Increased Structural Integrity – Recommendation A … and GROUP 2. Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures – Recommendations B, C, D & E (out of 13).

.

5.  TGD B’s Appendix F – Reference Standards

Add this Important New Standard …

  • ISO 21542 : 2011     Building Construction – Accessibility and Usability of the Built Environment

.

6.  TGD B’s Appendix G – Reference Publications

Add these Two Important Publications …

  • NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  September 2005.  Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.  NIST NCSTAR 1.  Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

and

  • NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology).  August 2008.  Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.  NIST NCSTAR 1A.  Gaithersburg, MD, USA.

.

Should you wish to receive further information on any of my comments … please consult FireOx International’s Technical Blog at  www.cjwalsh.ie … or contact me directly.

Please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail communication.

.

Kind regards.

C. J. Walsh, FireOx International – Ireland, Italy & Turkey.

.

.

END

Enhanced by Zemanta

EU Ratification of UN Disability Convention – EFC Legal Study

Posted by CJ Walsh

2011-02-05:  Further to my post, dated 15 January 2011 …

Many people directly or indirectly involved with Disability-Related Issues in Europe … may not yet know that, a few weeks ago, the European Union ratified the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD).  They may not even know that their own country, as a Member State of the European Union, had perhaps already ratified the UN Convention one or two years earlier.

At this time, the majority of Member States have proceeded, voluntarily, to ratify the Convention … with some of those, inexplicably, declining/refusing to ratify the Convention’s Optional Protocol.

Human & Social Rights can be a difficult subject area !

Ireland has not ratified the UN Convention … and, unfortunately, the attitude of many policy-makers and decision-makers within our Irish Institutions of State, large and small, is that it’s business as usual … no need to worry or fuss, or give a damn … until this country does actually sign on the Convention’s bottom line … an attitude which displays a magnificent ignorance of the changed reality, post Lisbon Treaty, which is the European Union’s Current Legal Environment !!

Please examine carefully, for yourselves, the findings of this Legal Study, recently approved for publication by the European Commission …

European Foundation Centre (EFC)

Brussels, October 2010

Study on Challenges and Good Practices in the Implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Click the Link Above to read and/or download PDF File (1.46 Mb)

.

EU RATIFICATION OF THE UN CRPD – ASPECTS OF EU LAW

The following are selected extracts from the EFC Study … my selection (!) … to answer specific issues relating to UN CRPD Implementation within the European Union.  Typographical errors in the Study have also been corrected … and, post Lisbon Treaty, references to the EU Treaties have been properly updated …

The legal basis for the conclusion of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) signals the appropriate legal basis for its implementation within the European Union (EU).  In this respect, and in line with Article 4 of the UN Convention, implementation implies that instruments may be adopted or modified by the Union in order to comply with the Convention and give effect to its provisions and principles.  Although the choice of the legal basis for the decision concluding an international agreement is very important, it is not decisive for implementation.  In European Court of Justice Case C-178/0345, which concerned the implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on International Trade in Hazardous Chemicals, the Court stated that ” the fact that one or more provisions of the Treaty have been chosen as legal bases for the approval of an international agreement is not sufficient to show that those same provisions must also be used as legal bases for the adoption of measures intended to implement that agreement at Community level “.   The latter statement means that EU Treaty provisions other than those mentioned in EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC to conclude the UN CRPD can be used as legal bases to implement UN CRPD obligations in specific fields.

.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) is an international human rights agreement where both the European Union (EU) and its Member States are contracting parties.  The UN Convention is thus a Mixed Agreement.  Mixed Agreements involve a Shared Contractual Relationship between the EU, its Member States and one or more third countries and/or international organisations.  As a Mixed Agreement, the UN CRPD covers fields that fall in part within the competence of the EU, in part within that of the Member States and in part within the shared competence of the EU and its Member States.  It is therefore essential for the EU and the Member States to closely co-operate, in order to implement legislation stemming from the Convention in a coherent manner and ensure unity in the international representation of the Union.

EU Member States, when participating in Mixed Agreements, do not act as entirely autonomous subjects of international law; they are subject to a Duty of Loyal Co-Operation between one another and the EU.  This duty extends to each of the negotiation, conclusion and implementation phases.  In this sense, there is a collective management of the obligations under international law.  The duty of loyal co-operation, deriving from Article 4.3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), embraces two sets of obligations: first, Member States shall take appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the EC Treaty or resulting from action taken by the EU Institutions;  and second: Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives … which are set out in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).

Treaty on European Union (TEU) – Consolidated Version, as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon

Article 4.3

Pursuant to the principle of sincere mutual co-operation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.

The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.

The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s objectives.

.

In relation to EU Member States‘ Compliance with a Mixed Agreement concluded by the EU … the European Court of Justice has inferred that for matters falling within EU competence … the Member States fulfil, within the EU system, an obligation in relation to the Union which has assumed responsibility for due performance of the agreement.  In other words, if a Member State fails to take all appropriate measures to implement provisions of the Mixed Agreement that fall within the competence of the EU … it not only fails to fulfil its international obligation, but is also acting in breach of EU Law.  The European Commission may thus bring an infringement case against a Member State that has not properly fulfilled its duty.  The principle underpinning such mechanisms is the ‘duty of loyal co-operation’, which provides the foundation for managing shared competence within Mixed Agreements.

The line dividing international responsibility for implementation of the International Mixed Agreement between the EU and its Member States depends on the obligations respectively assumed.  The UN CRPD contains a clause setting out ‘separate’ responsibility.  According to Article 44.1, Regional Integration Organisations acceding to the Convention shall declare, in their instruments of formal confirmation or accession, the extent of their competence.  This division of responsibility for implementation implies that the European Union only bears responsibility for the breach of those obligations it has assumed.

EU Council Decision 2010/48/EC on the conclusion of the UN CRPD refers to EU competence in respect of those matters governed by the UN CRPD, and lists EU Instruments which demonstrate such competence.

.

STRUCTURE OF THE EFC REPORT

The main objective of the Study was to analyse the obligations set out in the UN CRPD and, in particular, to gather information about the various practices of the EU Member States and the European Union in implementing the UN CRPD.

The work was carried out by the European Foundation Centre (EFC), representing the European Consortium of Foundations on Human Rights and Disability … under Contract No. VC/2008/1214 … for the European Commission‘s Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs & Inclusion.

Section 1 of this Report sets the appropriate background for the analysis that will follow.

Section 2 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of the social model of disability, and core obligations deriving from Article 1 and Preamble Paragraph (e) of the UN CRPD.

Section 3 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of Article 3 (General Principles), Article 4 (General Obligations), Article 5 (Equality and Non-Discrimination), and Article 9 (Accessibility) of the UN CRPD.  The section also reviews UN CRPD articles on Inter-Sectionality, namely Articles 6 (Women with Disabilities) and Article 7 (Children with Disabilities).  It is worth noting that the articles addressed in this section are articles of general and crosscutting application, and therefore their application is relevant for the implementation of all articles of the Convention.

Section 4 of the Report provides an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of selected substantive provisions of the UN CRPD which apply existing civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights within the context of disability.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Articles 16 (Freedom from Exploitation, Violence and Abuse) and 17 (Protecting the Integrity of the Person), which are seeking to assert protections that underscore the humanity of all persons with disabilities.  The section also considers the implementation of Articles 12 (Equal Recognition before the Law) and 19 (Living Independently and Being Included in the Community), both of which aim at maintaining and safeguarding the autonomy of the person.  Furthermore, articles on specific accessibility rights, namely Article 13 (Access to Justice) and Article 29 (Participation in Political and Public Life), are likewise addressed.  Finally, the section considers the implementation of Articles 24 (Education) and 27 (Work and Employment).

Section 5 of the Report contains an overview and general recommendations on the implementation of articles which outline steps that are necessary to support reforms.  Specifically, the section considers the implementation of Article 31 (Statistics and Data Collection), Article 32 (International Co-Operation), and Article 33 (National Implementation and Monitoring).

Section 6 of the Report suggests good practices for the EU and national policy-makers for the future and overall implementation of the Convention, and the effective achievement of its objectives.

It is worth noting that, while it is hard to be definitive, given that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is still in its infancy and has yet to pronounce on the obligations of the UN CRPD … it is nevertheless possible on the basis of the general principles of the Convention and interpretative tools, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to identify illustrative challenges to the implementation of the UN CRPD.  For the purposes of this Study, the review of EU and Member States policies and legal instruments is based on the analysis of the UN CRPD and checklists that were produced from this Study to measure progress.

Finally, for the purposes of the Study, a challenge is defined as a ‘difficulty’ posed by existing national or EU practice which may potentially hamper the full and effective implementation of the UN CRPD by the EU Member States and/or the European Union.  In order to meet such challenges, it will be necessary, inter alia, for the EU (as appropriate) and/or its Member States to review legislation and/or policy with a view to full compliance.  On the other hand, a practice is defined as good if it fulfils certain requirements of the Convention or mainstreams the general principles, consistent with Article 3 of the UN CRPD, and has an awareness-raising impact.

.

.

END