WRITTEN QUESTION P-1522/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Expansion of the Gardaland amusement park (Castelnuovo del Garda, Verona).
Date: 1999-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, environmental policy, environmental protection, industrial project, leisure park

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/29

Can the Commission answer the following:

1.

2.

Should the Commission not call for a postponement of the decree (which is due to enter force on
30 June 2000) and of any infringement procedure which could be opened for failure to transpose the
relevant European directives?

Should the Commission not examine more closely the actual nature of the textile waste in question
and the classification thereof as special waste, possibly by consulting the companies and workers
involved and the social partners?

3. Can the Commission make a general comment on the matter?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1999)

Article 1 of Council Directive 75/0442/EEC on waste (1) as modified by Directive 91/0156/EEC reads: For
the purposes of this directive (cid:145)waste(cid:146) shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex
I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Article 1, No 3 of Directive 91/0689/EEC
on hazardous waste refers to this definition.

On the basis of this definition and on the basis of the interpretation of this definition given by the Court
of justice, textile wastes cannot be excluded from the scope of application of the Community waste
legislation. In its judgement of 25 June 1997 in case C-304/94, 330/94, 342/94 and 224/95, the Court
said: The concept of (cid:145)waste(cid:146) in Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, referred to in
Article 1(3) of Council Directive 91/689 on hazardous waste and Article 2(a) of Regulation No 259/93 on
the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, is not
to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization, even if
the materials in question may be the subject of a transaction or quoted on public or private commercial
lists.

In the light of the above, and on the basis of the information and of the reasons given by the Honourable
Member, it does not appear to the Commission that the Italian draft decree qualifying textile wastes as
special wastes is likely to be in conflict with the Community legislation on waste. It is however only after it
has examined the final text of the decree, that the Commission will be able to reach an opinion whether it
contains provisions which infringe Community waste legislation. Companies and social partners involved
in the matter are well aware of the above mentioned position taken by the Court of justice, which has the
prerogative in the interpretation of Community law, as regards the issue of the definition of (cid:145)waste(cid:146) in the
Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.

(2000/C 170 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1522/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Expansion of the (cid:145)Gardaland(cid:146) amusement park (Castelnuovo del Garda, Verona)

It would appear from its answer to written question E-2513/98 of 14 July 1998 (1) on the above subject
that the Commission is unaware of the ill feeling and criticism which, for many years, Gardaland (cid:129) which
began as a series of buildings put up for the most part
its
environmental and socio-economic impact. In its present form the park contravenes, most notably, the
requirements of the Lake Garda Area Plan, contained in the Regional Territorial Coordination Plan, the
overall planning instrument for the Veneto region (2). This plan provides, among other things, for the
protection of the landscape and natural resources and, to that end, restricts building on the section of land
between the (cid:145)Gardesana(cid:146) road and the lake, the area in which the planned expansion of the park is to take
place. Two serious environmental issues have not been addressed: noise pollution and traffic. As regards
the first, according to recent checks carried out by the regional environmental agency, it is very unlikely

illegally (cid:129) has provoked, because of

C 170 E/30

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2000

that the park will be able to stay within the required noise pollution limits (3). Concerning the second issue,
the Leoncini company, which is much more significant in terms of stable employment than Gardaland, has
threatened legal action should the over-ambitious plans proposed by Gardaland for the reorganisation of
the local road network be implemented. On the issue of the environmental impact assessment: the deadline
for the implementation of Directive 97/0011/EEC on environmental impact assessments (4) expired on the
14 March. The directive provides for an environmental impact assessment to be carried out for theme
parks, on the basis of Article 4(2). The expansion should, at all events, be subject to the environmental
impact assessment provided for by the recent Regional Law (5). Lastly, it is difficult to understand why a
European loan has been granted, given that the company has considerable financial resources. Meanwhile,
the failure to float the company on the stock exchange has prompted a number of partners (including UBS
[Union of Swiss Banks] which holds 25 % of the registered capital) to take legal action over the liability of
the company directors (6).

How can the Commission state that (cid:145)the main focus of the Gardaland theme park is to diversify the range
of natural (cid:133) activities(cid:146) (7), when the park has altered the area(cid:146)s orological configuration through the
construction of buildings that are completely incongruent with the original natural environment? How can
it justify a project that contravenes the provisions of the planning instruments in force? How does it intend
to ensure that the environmental impact assessment procedure is applied to the plans for the expansion of
the park? How is it possible that the EIB is financing a project which contravenes the Union(cid:146)s objective of
sustainable development, promoted by a company with considerable assets? Does the Commission not
consider that the internal disagreements in the company could have an adverse effect on the transparent
and efficient use of European funds?

(1) OJ C 297, 15.10.1999, p. 18.
(2) Veneto Regional Council measure No 250/1991.
(3) National Framework Law on noise pollution No 447, of 26 October 1995.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(5) Veneto Regional Law No 10, of 26 March 1999, section B2, para. qq.
(6) Cases No RG 239298 and 239398 before the Court of Verona.
(7) Commission(cid:146)s answer to written question E-2513/98 by Gianni Tamino MEP.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 1999)

Although located in the area of Lake Garda,
lake-front
development, and is situated on flat land. This means it has a negligible botanical or topographical impact.

the Gardaland theme park is not a direct

Concerning the application of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedure to the plans for the
expansion of Gardaland, the Commission is always ready to examine any specific and detailed complaint
concerning a possible breach of Community legislation on EIA. If the Commission considered that such a
complaint disclosed a breach of Community law, it could open infringement proceedings under Article
226 EC Treaty (ex Article 169).

The Commission would stress that Council Directive 97/0011/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
85/0337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1),
lists, in Annex II, the following classes of projects: theme parks (12 e) and any change or extension of
projects listed in Annex I or Annex II, already authorized, executed or in the process of being executed,
which may have significant adverse effects on the environment (13). For projects listed in Annex II,
Member States are obliged to determine, through case-by-case examination, or thresholds or criteria set by
the Member State, whether the project is to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with
Articles 5 to 10. However, projects with requests for development consent submitted before 14 March
1999 are governed by the provisions of Directive 85/0337/EEC prior to the amendments. Theme parks
were not listed in the Annexes of Directive 85/0337/EEC.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) advanced a loan of € 31 million (ITL 60 000 million) to Gardaland
in March 1998. The main justification was to support the local economy in an area heavily dependent on
tourism. Created in 1975, Gardaland plays a crucial role in attracting visitors to the region. However, in
the early 1990s, lack of investment and the economic slow-down led to a reduction in visitors to the park.
Updated facilities were considered vital to maintain the park(cid:146)s attractiveness and enhance its long-term
employment prospects. The finance decision was also taken as part of the EIB policy to support small and

20.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 170 E/31

medium sized enterprises investment. The project was also considered for its positive spill-over effects in
the region(cid:146)s tourism and related services sectors. At the time the EIB took its decision, the project had
planning permission from the Italian authorities.
It was out of the scope of Directive 85/337 and
Directive 97/11 was not applicable. However, environmental consequences of the project were considered
by the Italian authorities. Given the nature of the project and the selection criteria listed in Annex III to
Directive 97/11, they took the view that the project would not require a full EIA.

(1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 170 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1523/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: Dioxin measurements in foodstuffs

A letter issued in June 1999 by the German food industry body, BLL, states that the Belgian authorities are
declaring end products to be dioxin-free, although the proof is based only on extrapolations relating to
seven PCBs. This extrapolation method may possibly be used in the used oil and lubricant field, but not in
relation to foodstuffs.

Has the Commission been informed about this reprehensible extrapolation method being used by the

1.
Belgian authorities?

Does the Commission agree that no arbitrary extrapolations should be carried out, owing to the

2.
serious potential risks posed by PCBs?

Does the Commission share my view that tolerance levels of 1-4 pg/kg are totally absurd and

3.
arbitrary, and cannot guarantee that risks to health will be excluded?

4. When will the Commission set limit values for dioxins in foodstuffs and thereby put an end to the
scandalous situation in which no limits are calculated and there is irresponsible (cid:145)self-regulation(cid:146) by the food
industry?

5.
Is the Commission aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recent studies
which show that many more PCBs (in addition to the mere seven named over here) are classed as toxic?
Has the Commission seen these studies? What conclusions will it draw therefrom?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 1999)

The contamination of foodstuffs reported to the Commission and the other Member States by Belgium on
27 May 1999 concerned abnormal dioxin levels in recycled fatty matter accidentally fed to certain poultry,
pigs and bovines.

The Commission has examined the various studies that have been made of this particular contamination.
These studies show that this dioxin contamination in fats can be demonstrated by the presence of seven
PCB congeners, namely 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180. This detection method is not adapted to
other forms of dioxin contamination in a different context: other PCBs should therefore be used as dioxin
contamination markers or, in cases in which dioxin contamination is not associated with the presence of
PCB, yet other markers. Hence, in each case of accidental dioxin contamination, an attempt is made to
identify the most reliable markers, which are not always the most toxic ones.

the time, expense and technical equipment necessary to identify dioxins in food,

Because of
few
laboratories are in a position to perform this type of analysis. In the case of an extended research
programme it is therefore always better to rely on less costly and less time-consuming analyses using PCBs,
which are reliable markers and make it possible to identify contaminated products and, in certain cases,
may indicate the presence of dioxins.