WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/01 by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Packaging Directive.
Date: 2001-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, environmental protection, packaging, waste management

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/201

In the United Kingdom we also have farmers who rear pigs by contract for primary producers/owners.
These contract rearers have been denied any form of compensation from the UK Government because they
have not had to forfeit their own (cid:145)property(cid:146). However, the pigs under their care have been slaughtered and
their source of income has completely dried up (cid:129) rendering them as economically hard-hit as primary
producers by this epidemic.

If the UK Government were to submit a plan for some degree of financial assistance to be made available
to contract pig rearers, would this financial assistance be legal under EU state aid rules? If so, to what
degree?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2001)

Point 11.4 of the Community Guidelines for State aids in the agriculture sector (1) concerning aids designed
to compensate farmers for the losses incurred in the case of animal diseases does not on principle exclude
the type of beneficiaries described by the Honourable Member. The actual possibility to authorise State aids
in their favour as well as the scope and extent of such aids could however only be determined after
examining the specific nature of the contractual relation existing between the owner of the pigs and the
contract rearers.

(1) OJ C 232, 12.8.2000.

(2001/C 235 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0413/01

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: European Packaging Directive

Following the recent ruling in the British High Court that a plastic flowerpot is deemed to be packaging
and therefore falls under the European Packaging Directive, can the Commission confirm that
the
definition of packaging falls within the powers and responsibilities of the Member States?

Does it agree that different definitions adopted by different Member States are likely to cause confusion
within the single market?

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

(30 March 2001)

The definition of packaging is included in the Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
1994 on packaging and packaging waste (1). Since then, the Directive has been implemented into national
laws according to the procedure specified in the Directive, including the transposition of the definitions of
packaging.

Accordingly, the interpretation of this definition, as applied at national level, falls within the powers and
responsibilities of the Member States, taking into account the relevant Community jurisprudence on the
subject.

The Commission may neither interfere with the ruling of national courts nor provide a definitive
interpretation of the Community legislation. The definition of packaging, as stated in the Directive 94/
62/EC, may only be determined ultimately by the Court of Justice.

C 235 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

However, the Commission recognises that the definition of packaging as stated in the Council Directive
94/62/EC has proven difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots, and that differing
interpretations of the concept of packaging could cause confusion within the single market. For that
reason, the Commission has been and is working on this issue with the support of all the different
stakeholders of the packaging chain (including Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental
organizations and consumers) in order to assess how best to interpret this definition.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2001/C 235 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0426/01

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(16 February 2001)

Subject: Answers to questions about the advance issue of euro coins and notes

Why does the Commission deliberately refuse to answer written questions tabled to it by an MEP?

In its answer to Written Question E-3898/00 (1), the Commission rambles on and on about the need to
keep as short as possible the period in 2002 when banknotes and coins denominated in euros and in
national currencies are in circulation side-by-side, on the grounds that the advance issue of euro banknotes
might actually result in that period being prolonged.

First of all, it is difficult to see the danger that would arise if a banknote denominated in euros were to
appear before the official date of 1 January 2002. More to the point,
the real question remains
unanswered: since automatic teller machines will not be able to dispense banknotes with a face value of
€ 5 and € 10, retailers will find themselves receiving payment in larger denominations and may well be
unable to give change in € 5 or € 10 banknotes. That will inevitably prolong the period during which
euros and national currencies are in circulation side-by-side.

That being the case, does not the Commission think that it would be wise to provide for the advance issue
to the public of € 5 and € 10 banknotes (cid:129) like the advance issue of euro coins (cid:129) in the week before the
official introduction of the euro? Would the earth be split in twain if a few banknotes were actually used
before the official date for the introduction of euro notes and coins?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

In connection with the introduction of euro banknotes and coins as the final step in the changeover
towards the single currency, it is very important to avoid any confusion for the citizens and to reduce the
inconveniences for the retail sector due to operations in two currencies. Therefore, euro area Member
States came to the conclusion that a reduction of the period of dual circulation of banknotes and coins in
2002 to the broadest extent possible is crucial.

The reduction of the dual circulation period as well as the intended effects could be called in to question
by banknote frontloading to the public. Moreover, in case of banknote frontloading to the public the risk
of an early circulation of these notes could not be excluded.

This is why the Ministers of Finance and the Commission have concurred with the European Central
Bank(cid:146)s position not to frontload banknotes to the public.