WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/00 by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Problem concerning the charge imposed by the German Government on empty drinks bottles.
Date: 2000-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Germany, competition law, deposit on a polluting product, free movement of goods, information, infringement of EU law, packaging product, single market

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/55

The Community measures, where correctly applied, substantially reduce the risk for consumers. However,
effective implementation and enforcement of Community legislation on BSE is the competence of the
Member States. The Commission(cid:146)s Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) carries out inspections to audit the
enforcement by the Member States and its reports are regularly published on the Commission website.

Despite reported shortcomings, it can be concluded that the overall situation has significantly improved
since the first BSE crisis. The FVO inspections are being stepped up and particular attention will be given
to a correct implementation of the feed ban and recently approved measures on SRMs and testing.

Following the latest scientific advice from 12 January 2001, and the conclusions of the Agriculture Council
on 29-30 January 2001, the Commission is preparing draft proposals to ban the use of mechanically
recovered meat and to apply additional restrictions for the use of rendered ruminant fat for animal feed,
and concerning the removal of the vertebral column.

(1) OJ C 45, 19.2.1999.
(2) COM(2000) 574 final.
(3) COM(2000) 716 final.
(4) COM(1999) 719 final.

(2001/C 187 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3799/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Deposits on disposable bottles in Germany

Germany(cid:146)s environment ministers recently agreed to introduce a statutory deposit on cans and disposable
bottles. The regulation is to take effect in the summer of 2001, so as to control the quota of re-usable
products and the flood of cans. It will encourage consumers to return their bottles to the the company that
sells its products in disposable bottles. This is in fact creating difficulties for companies which import
disposable bottles into Germany, and then have to take the bottles back although the legislation of their
own country does not provide for this.

Is a regulation passed by a single country in this way not setting in train a market mechanism that runs
counter to the free internal market and free trade? Is action of this kind compatible with EU principles?

(2001/C 187 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3974/00

by Mario Mastella (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 December 2000)

Subject: Problem concerning the charge imposed by the German Government on empty drinks bottles

As of 19 January 2001, the German Government plans to place a deposit of DM 0,50 on all non-
returnable bottles or containers which contain drinks (including wine, beer, mineral water etc.).

As a result of this charge, German consumers would obviously be able to return the empties (glass bottles
and cans) to the retailer where they had bought the various products. The retailer would be obliged to take
back the empties and in turn return them to the supplier from whom he had bought the products. In
addition to imposing an incredible workload on German importers in planning and organising transport to
and from suppliers, this deposit charge would also raise imported product costs in comparison with
domestically-produced products, with serious consequences for the whole market. In fact, those supplying
the German market would find themselves having to face insoluble problems as regards empties returned
in unimaginable states, which would of course be unusable.

C 187 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Therefore,

(cid:129) does the Commission not consider that a provision of this type might constitute a more or less open
breach of Community regulations concerning the single market and the principle of free competition?

(cid:129) If so, does it not intend to take any initiatives designed to eliminate, or at least to restrict, possible
discrimination which could result for drinks suppliers from other Member States operating in the
German market?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3799/00 and E-3974/00
given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2001)

The Conference of German Environment Ministers, in October 2000, adopted a common communication
calling for an amendment of the existing German packaging ordinance. They asked the Federal Minister,
Mr J(cid:252)rgen Trittin, to draft a proposal of an amendment, which would introduce an obligatory deposit for
a number of beverage packagings.

The Federal Environment Ministry has not yet produced this draft. Therefore, the amendment of the
ordinance is, at this stage, merely a political objective of the Conference of German Environment Ministers,
which is likely to be subject to modifications following the completion of the formal consultation process,
which is not yet underway.

It would therefore be premature, at this point in time, to presume conflicts between a possible amendment
of the German packaging ordinance and existing Community law. However, the Commission is closely
following this issue and will examine the draft proposal once it is produced.

As far as the existing German packaging ordinance is concerned, which foresees inter alia a minimum refill
quota of 72 % for beverage packaging, the Commission issued in July 2000 a Reasoned Opinion to
Germany. The Commission believes that the German legislation infringes the Parliament and Council
Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1) in conjunction with
Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty as far as natural mineral waters are concerned, which are to be
filled at source, as the appropriate balance between free movement of these goods and environmental
protection has not been clearly struck.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 187 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3814/00

by John Bowis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2000)

Subject: Compliance with 1991 Pigs Directive

What steps is the Commission taking to ensure that all Member States comply with the 1991 Pigs
Directive?

Will it confirm that, to date, only Sweden, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands
have implemented or have drafted legislation for implementing the Directive?

When will new proposals be brought forward by the Commission?

What support is being given to the Polish Government(cid:146)s resistance to the introduction of intensive farming
of pigs?