WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/99 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Alain Krivine (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Health risks from processing Dutch lead batteries in France.
Date: 2000-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, France, Netherlands, administrative check, environmental protection, export of waste, health risk, lead, metal pollution, soil pollution, waste recycling

C 225 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Given the situation outlined above, it is not up to the Commission to comment on any initiative which
would allow (cid:145)denturists-denturologists(cid:146) to carry out their profession with complete autonomy, possibly in
collaboration with a dentist, nor is it qualified to take such an initiative.

In the absence of Community harmonisation measures, the field in question is the responsibility of the
national authorities, which means that the Member States have every right to give the monopoly for a
specific activity (such as (cid:145)work inside the mouth(cid:146)) to another professional, in this instance the dentist.
Given that the activities being carried out are non-harmonised medical activities, it is not an infringement
of Community law to reserve these for a particular profession (cid:129) cf. the Court of Justice judgment of
3 October 1990 in case C-61/89 (Bouchoucha) (4).

Finally, as for the possibility of applying Community competition rules to the awarding, by certain
Member States, of a monopoly position to one specific professional group for (cid:145)work inside the mouth(cid:146),
this could only be envisaged in the rather unlikely event of the professional group which holds the
monopoly being manifestly incapable of satisfying the demand for services, as happened in case C-41/90
(H(cid:246)fner) (5). The Commission has no information to suggest that this is the case with regard to the service
in question.

(1) OJ C 79, 18.3.1996.
(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(4)
ECR 1990, p. I-3551.
(5)
ECR 1991, p. I-1979.

(2000/C 225 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2565/99

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Alain Krivine (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Health risks from processing Dutch lead batteries in France

(11 January 2000)

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Metal Blanc company in the French village of Bourg-FidŁle
(Ardennes department) is processing waste lead batteries, and that as a result the surrounding area has
become seriously polluted, which has meant that a quarter of children are suffering from lead poisoning,
according to an inquiry by the RØseau National de SantØ Publique (RNSP), it is dangerous to allow cows to
graze and residents are being advised not to eat vegetables from their own gardens?

Is it also aware that the French courts closed down the Metal Blanc company some time ago, partly
2.
because it did not have a closed system for collecting lead fumes and waste water, but that in anticipation
of the company(cid:146)s compliance with the required provisions they have again granted permission to resume
the transport and processing of lead waste?

3.
Can the Commission confirm the position as stated by the Netherlands Minister for the Environment
in answer to questions by the Dutch MP R. Poppe, that the procedure for the collection of orange list
waste substances means that the authorities concerned decide, independently of one another, each for their
own area, whether or not to grant permission to export and import waste, so that the Netherlands does
not have to ask the relevant French authorities first about the accuracy of the data supplied by the
company concerning its processing method?

Does the Commission agree that the procedure described in point 3 can mean that public health and
4.
information available from the various authorities concerned is not exchanged soon
environmental
enough, thus enabling companies to evade the usual national government controls by shipping waste to
another Member State?

Can the Commission confirm that an investigation into the European lead industry is currently under

5.
way, under its responsibility? When will the results become available?

6. Will the Commission see to it that the European regulation on the transport of waste is revised to
ensure that, prior to the transport of waste, all the authorities involved coordinate their data and take a
pro-Community stand on the acceptability of its transport and reprocessing?

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/167

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

(9 February 2000)

The Commission was informed by a complaint of the facts described by the Honourable Members. A letter
of request for information was sent to the French government.

In the absence of an answer after more than eight months, the Commission addressed to this Member
State, pursuant to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty (procedure for failure to fulfil an
obligation) a letter of formal notice for violation of Article 10 (ex Article 5) of the EC Treaty (1). This
provision stipulates that Member States should facilitate the Community institutions(cid:146) achievement of
their mission. In this case France did not enable the Commission to ensure its mission of guardian of
Community law. In response, the French authorities provided information and comments, underlining in
particular that the infringements established had recently led the authorities to take strict measures and
that the local court was continuing to deal with of the case. The complainants were informed of this
answer.

The procedure applying to shipments of so-called (cid:145)amber list(cid:146) wastes for recovery within the Community is
laid down in Articles 6(cid:141)9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the Community (2). The notifier has to supply in
information with particular regard to the identity of the
the relevant notification of the shipment,
consignee of the waste, the location of the recovery centre and the type and duration of the authorisation
under which the centre operates. The notification, and thus the above-mentioned information, is made
available to all authorities involved in the state of dispatch, destination and transit. A shipment may only
be effected if, within a period of 30 days, none of the authorities involved have raised objections on any of
the grounds outlined in Article 7 (4). The Regulation does not foresee a specific obligation for the
authority of dispatch (in this case, in the Netherlands), to ask the authority of destination (in this case, in
France) for confirmation whether the information supplied by the notifier on the notification form with
regard to the intended recovery is correct. It is primarily up to the authority of destination to check
whether this information is correct, and if this is not the case, to object to the shipment.

The Commission is of the opinion that the procedures of Council Regulation 259/93 ensure sufficient
supervision and control of waste shipments for recovery within the Community and do not provide an
incentive for economic operators to evade (cid:145)usual national government controls(cid:146). The procedure under
Articles 6(cid:141)9 of Council Regulation (EEC) 259/93 requires the involvement of all authorities in controlling
and supervising a given shipment. If only one of the authorities raises an objection, the shipment may not
take place. The fact that an objection is raised has to be notified to all authorities involved. Therefore,
irrespective of a possible authorisation of a shipment by the authority of dispatch, if the authority of
destination raises an objection, this shipment may not take place.

The Danish authorities notified draft legislation concerning the ban on the import, sale and production of
lead and lead-containing products to the Commission on 31 December 1998. On the basis of Directive
98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision
of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (3), the Commission had three months to
react to the Danish notification. A further three month period was added since some Member States sent
detailed opinions to the Danish authorities. The Commission also sent a letter of observations to the
Danish authorities. The content of this notification and the scientific justification of the measures foreseen
in the draft decree are currently being assessed by the Commission, with the assistance of the scientific
committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment which also has to give its opinion on the more
general question of the effects of lead on human health and environment in the Community.

The procedures of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 ensure sufficient supervision and control of waste
shipments for recovery within the Community. The Commission does not consider that an amendment of
the procedures in the way suggested by the Honourable Members would add anything to the current level
of supervision and control.

Press release IP 99/812 of 29 October 1999.

(1)
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.
(3) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.