WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2387/98 by Lyndon HARRISON to the Commission. Central European Time
Date: 1998-07-27
Institutions: European Parliament, HARRISON
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, European Commission, United Kingdom, approximation of laws, principle of subsidiarity, summertime

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/67

Is the competent authority of the State of destination entitled to object on the grounds of self-sufficiency,
pursuant to Article 4(3)(b)(i) of the Regulation, only if the relevant waste disposal facility is being used to
capacity or if it is required for the disposal of waste in that State? To what extent is this objection possible
if, even though the plant is not being used to capacity with local waste, the authority wants to restrict waste
tourism in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 75/442/EEC (2) on waste or to reduce local pollution of
the environment?

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2385/98, E-2465/98, E-2466/98, E-2467/98 and E-2468/98
given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 1998)

The Commission assumes that the shipment of waste in question is a shipment of hazardous wastes for
disposal. Such shipments are covered by Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, of which
Article 4(3a.i) stipulates: (cid:145)Member States may take measures in accordance with the Treaty to prohibit
generally or partially or to object systematically to shipments of waste(cid:146). This provision thus offers a
possibility to Member States to generally and systematically object to shipments for disposal; however, it
in no way imposes any obligation on them to object to shipments for disposal. Article 130t of the EC
Treaty is not of relevance here, since more than a total ban is not imaginable.

The objection against shipments may not be in contradiction to the general provisions of the Treaty;
however, the indication that other installations are more adequate does not appear to contradict with these
general provisions. A shipment may also be objected to in order to reduce the transport risk. Furthermore,
it is not a precondition for the objection to a shipment that the waste management plan which was set up,
expressly excludes the disposal of waste from other Member States.

How a Member State organizes itself in its internal waste management structure does not fall under the
scope of Community law. Therefore, the relationship between two authorities inside a Member State is to
be decided according to the national law of that Member State.

(1999/C 118/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/98

by Lyndon Harrison (PSE) to the Commission

(27 July 1998)

Subject: Central European Time

Would the Commission encourage the United Kingdom to adopt Central European time, since this would
result in an enormous advantage for business, trade and commerce and the tourism industry and would
reduce the number of child deaths caused by road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 1998)

The role of the Community on issues relating to time has been limited to harmonising the rules concerning
the functioning of the summer-time regimes, in particular the dates for the beginning and the end of the
period, to facilitate the free movement of goods, services and citizens throughout the Community. The
Commission is aware of considerations like those put by the Honourable Member in his question but, in
accordance with the subsidiarity principle, takes the view that decisions concerning the choice of time
zone are best made at national level.