WRITTEN QUESTION E-2278/00 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Burgo paper mill incinerator, Mantua.
Date: 2000-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: environmental impact, environmental law, industrial pollution, industrial project, project evaluation, pulp and paper industry, waste incineration

C 113 E/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Could the Commission answer the following questions, with a view to preventing unfair charges and
distortions of the internal market:

1. Can producers lawfully and freely market Sugraone grapes, without being subject to any restrictions
by potential Community purchasers in terms of proving that they have paid production royalties?

2. Does the obligation to pay royalties at the production and marketing stage (and the requirement for
purchasers to check that such royalties have been paid) apply solely to the marketing of varieties of
table grapes that have been patented and have registered names and trademarks, or do such
obligations also apply to producers marketing named varieties of table grapes, such as Sugraone
grapes, which are included, and approved for cultivation, in the catalogue of national varieties in Italy
in accordance with Community rules?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 September 2000)

The registration of a variety in the Italian national catalogue of varieties does not mean that it is not also
protected under the Community or national rules on new plant varieties. To answer the questions raised, it
is necessary to know the exact nature and the scope of the protection from which the variety of table
grape mentioned benefits, which the question does not specify.

If the variety mentioned (Sugraone) is not the subject of Community protection of new plant varieties, as
provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety
rights (1), which is the responsibility of the Community Plant Variety Office, it may be that it is the subject
of protection of the same type at Italian national level, which the Honourable Member will be able to
check with the Italian authorities dealing with new plant varieties.

As an indication, the scope of the Community protection of new plant varieties provided by Regulation
(EC) No 2100/94 extends to the harvested material of the variety, including fruit, if it was obtained by the
unauthorised use of variety constituents of the protected variety. Perhaps, therefore, purchasers wish to
make sure that the fruit that they market was produced by authorised propagating material of the
protected variety.

The above protection applies as much to products marketed under a registered trademark as to products
resulting from the same variety which are marketed under other non-protected trade descriptions.
However, in all cases, Commission Regulation (EC) No 2789/1999 of 22 December 1999 laying down
the marketing standard for table grapes (2) stipulates that packages have to show, in any event, the name of
the variety.

(1) OJ L 227, 1.9.1994.
(2) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(2001/C 113 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2278/00

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Burgo paper mill incinerator, Mantua

(7 July 2000)

The Burgo paper mill, which is situated in the immediate vicinity of Mantua, is about to start operating an
industrial waste incinerator (1), for the construction of which the Lombardy region granted approval
(DGR No 30490 of 1 August 1997) (2). During its construction, Burgo S.p.A made various changes to
the plans which resulted in the facility being changed from an incineration plant with energy recovery to
an on-land incineration plant with prior temporary storage. This meant that the project had to go through
a second administrative approval process, which culminated in the region granting approval (DGR No VI/
49445 of 7 April 2000) (3). On both occasions, however, the regional authorities granted approval without

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/79

checking whether it was necessary to carry out an environmental impact assessment of the project as a
whole. The results of analyses of sludge samples were not made available to the Commune of Mantua or to
the public. The incinerator in question would be situated in the immediate vicinity of a town that is
already heavily polluted due to the proximity of a large petrol refinery, a large chemical factory and heavy
through traffic, the effects of which are intensified by Mantua(cid:146)s damp and windless climate. The incinerator
would also be inside a restricted (4) and protected area, the Mincio regional park. Above all, at the same
time that the proposed incinerator was approved by the regional authorities, the local and regional
authorities also approved a proposal for a new housing estate for around a thousand people about
250 metres away from the paper mill and the proposed incinerator (5). After the public had protested
against the granting of approval for the incinerator and the new housing, on 31 May 2000 the Commune
of Mantua, which had not opposed the approval granted by the regional authorities in 1997, brought
proceedings against the Region and Burgo S.p.A before the regional administrative court for failure to
apply the environmental impact assessment procedure.

Can the Commission ascertain whether the European legislation on environmental impact assessment (6)
was applied, bearing in mind the judgement of the Court of Justice that, even in respect of the works listed
in Annex II of Directive 97/11/EC, a Member State is not entitled to decide that a project need not be
subject to environmental impact assessment if it has a significant impact on the environment by virtue of
its nature, scale or location (7)? Does it not agree that this project is covered by Annex I of Directive 97/11/
EC? Could the Commission also ascertain whether the provisions of Directive 96/61/EC (8) on the
prevention and reduction of pollution, which was supposed to have been transposed by 10.10.1999,
were applied?

(1) To dispose of c.240 tonnes per day sludge produced by de-inking.
(2) Subsequently rectified, on the grounds of material error, by DGR No 35931 of 5 May 1998.
(3) The request for permission to make substantial changes was submitted by Burgo on 28.7.1999, regional act

No 42079.

(4) Pursuant to Law No 431 of 8.8.1985 and Law No 1497 of 29.6.1939.
(5) C.f. acts of approval DCC No 202 of 16.12.1997 of the Mantua Commune Council and DPGR No 41163 of
29.9.1999 of the Lombardy region (BURL No 41, 11.10.1999). It is also worth noting that Article 216 of the
Italian Testo Unico delle Leggi Sanitarie lays down that all noxious industrial processes classed in law as Category I
(including incinerators) must be sited away from housing, unless the operator can prove that,
(cid:145)as a result of
applying new methods or special precautions(cid:146), the process does not constitute a threat to the health of anyone in
the vicinity (RD No 1265 of 27.7.1934, as amended). The Regolamento generale sanitario also states that the
council of the local commune, acting on the advice of the public health inspector, may give permission for a
Category I noxious process to be carried out in the vicinity of residential areas provided that the inspector certifies
that, (cid:145)as a result of applying new methods or special precautions(cid:146), the process does not constitute a threat to the
health of anyone in the vicinity (c.f. RD No 45 of 3.2.1901, as amended). Commenting on these provisions,
Lionello Rizzatti (Prevenzione grandi rischi industriali, Pirola Editore, 1989) also noted that, when an industry was
situated in an area recognised as suitable for that purpose, the local mayor should not, for obvious reasons, give
permission for the construction of housing, or classify land as suitable for housing,
if he was approached for
permission to build houses in the vicinity, and that, if planning permission had already been given, the mayor
should order the industrial plant to be closed down.

(6) Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 and OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).
(7) C-435/97 of 16.9.1999.
(8) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

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

(7 September 2000)

Based on the information given by the Honourable Member, the work to which the question makes
reference, an industrial waste incinerator, is within the scope of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) as
modified by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), and, in particular, it appears to be a project
of the classes listed in Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC (class 11c of Directive 85/337/EEC Installations
for the disposal of industrial and domestic waste, unless included in Annex I) and of the classes listed in
Annex I of Directive 97/11/EC (class 10 Waste disposal installations for the incineration or chemical
treatment as defined in Annex IIA to Directive 75/442/EEC under heading D9 of non-hazardous waste
with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day).

C 113 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Under Directive 85/337/EEC projects listed in Annex II should be made subject to an environmental
impact assessment (EIA) where Member States consider that their characteristics so require (Article 4,
paragraph 2). However, Member States are considered obliged to make at least a pre-assessment in order to
establish whether these projects need to be made subject to an EIA procedure. Under Directive 97/11/EC,
projects listed in Annex I are to be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

However, projects for which requests for development consent were submitted before 14 March 1999 are
in order to
governed by the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC prior to the amendments. Therefore,
for
identify the correct Community law to be applied it
development consent was submitted.

is necessary to check when the request

In addition, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member the project appears to be
covered by Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention
and control (IPPC) (3). Under this Directive, it would have needed an updated IPPC permit based on the best
available technologies (BAT) if the construction of the incinerator may have (cid:145)significant negative effects on
human beings or the environment(cid:146) in the opinion of the competent authority i.e. the Lombardy region
(Article 2(10) and of the Directive). Therefore, in order to identify the correct application of this directive it
is necessary to check whether the Lombardy region considered the installation of the incinerator as a
(cid:145)substantial change(cid:146), and if so, which BAT based permit conditions were established in the authorization.

Not being aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member, the Commission will take the
appropriate steps in order to gather detailed information about it and to ensure the observance of
Community law.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2001/C 113 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2287/00

by Andre Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(11 July 2000)

Subject: Illegal arms dumps and armed incidents in Kosovo

Having regard to the continuing uncertainty in Kosovo one year after the start of Operation Allied Force
and subsequent to my recent visit to Kosovo, the Council is asked to answer the following questions:

1. How many illegal arms dumps have been discovered by UNMIK or KFOR since June 1999 in Kosovo:

(cid:129) on the Albanian side, with what numbers of what weapons or other military equipment;

(cid:129) on the Serb side, with what numbers of what of weapons or other military equipment?

2. What intelligence has been gathered on the existence of yet other illegal arms dumps in Kosovo?

3. How many armed incidents resulting in woundings and killings have been registered:

(cid:129) on the Albanian side;

(cid:129) on the Serb side;

(cid:129) on the side of other ethnic minorities?