WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Continuing threat to the environment and public health in the French village of Bourg Fidèle posed by the processing of Dutch lead waste.
Date: 2001-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, environmental law, environmental protection, export of waste, hazardous waste, metal pollution, waste management

C 81 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

exemption is being considered to speed up the construction of this road in a simpler and cheaper way.
This plan could pose a direct threat to the survival of species such as the bluethroat, kingfisher, honey
buzzard, moor frog and floating water plantain.

Is it true that the Netherlands is also investigating to what extent an exemption under the Nature
conservation law would permit the destruction of the habitats of red-listed species to be found on the
eastern section?

To what extent is the construction of this road in breach of the European Habitats Directive?

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

(5 October 2001)

The Commission is currently investigating the facts raised by the Honourable Member as a result of a
complaint, which questions the compatibility of the proposed A73 motorway on the East bank of the river
Meuse between Roermond and Venlo and the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

This complaint concerns the question of the extent to which species listed in annexes II and IV of the
Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC and annex I of the Birds Directive, Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (2) could be affected by the East bank route of the proposed A73.

On 9 July 2001, a delegation of officials from several Dutch institutions and administrations involved in
the A73 project visited the General Directorate Environment to brief Commission officials on the actual
state of the project with regard to its effects on the nature interests concerned and on the proposed
mitigation and compensation measures. From this exchange, the Commission has learned that the decision
on the actual location was taken on the basis of a debate in Parliament in 1995 and that, since then, a
number of studies on the impacts of the A73 project on the area(cid:146)s nature interest have been carried out by
well-known environmental consultancies.

The Commission will pursue this complaint case by asking the Dutch Government to give a formal reply
to a series of questions regarding the likely effects of the A73 project on the state of conservation of the
species and habitats listed in the two Community Nature Protection Directives referred to above and by
requesting details of compensation measures envisaged.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2002/C 81 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2245/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Continuing threat to the environment and public health in the French village of Bourg FidŁle

posed by the processing of Dutch lead waste

1.
Is the Commission aware that large quantities of Dutch lead batteries are still being shipped to the
firm Metal Blanc in the French village of Bourg FidŁle in the Department of the Ardennes, that the lead is
being melted down in an open system, that the staff still have to work with face masks both inside and
outside the factory, that lead emissions are continuing into the outside atmosphere and that the ban
imposed in 1997 on the consumption of vegetables from gardens around the plant is still in force?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/139

2.

Does the Commission recall that in its answer to my Written Question E-2565/99 (1) it stated that:

(a) France had not enabled the Commission to ensure its mission of guardian of Community law, that it
had therefore addressed to France, pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty (procedure for failure to
fulfil an obligation) a letter of formal notice for violation of Article 10 of the EC Treaty and that the
French authorities had replied that the infringements established had recently lead the authorities to
take strict measures;

(b)

(c)

that it is primarily up to the authority of destination to check whether the information required by
Articles 6 to 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (2) on the supervision and control of shipments of waste
within, into and out of the Community and made available to all authorities involved in the state of
dispatch, destination and transit, with regard to the identity of the consignee of the waste, the location
of the recovery centre and the type and duration of the authorisation under which the centre operates
is correct and, if not, to object to the shipment within 30 days pursuant to Article 7(4).

that it is of the opinion that the current procedures ensure sufficient supervision and control of waste
shipments for recovery within the Community and do not provide an incentive for economic
operators to evade usual national government controls in that if only one of the authorities raises an
objection a shipment may not take place and any objection raised has to be notified to all authorities
involved?

3. What measures is the Commission taking to protect France against the continuing imports of lead
waste?

4.
Is the Commission encouraging the Member States to process lead waste as close as possible to
where the lead is produced in order to avoid lengthy transportation and situations that are difficult to
monitor?

In the present circumstances, does the Commission still consider that the current rules are adequate?

5.
If so, why? If not, what improvements is it working on?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 166.
(2) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.

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

(4 October 2001)

As regards the installation (cid:145)Metal Blanc(cid:146) the Commission can only confirm what has already been indicated
in the Commission(cid:146)s reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2565/99 (cid:129) namely that the
Commission was informed by a complaint of certain facts concerning the installation (cid:145)Metal Blanc(cid:146) (1).

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 state failure to fulfil an obligation), a letter of formal notice for
violation of Article 10 (ex-Article 5) of the EC Treaty (2).

In response to the letter of formal notice, the French Government provided information and comments,
underlining in particular that the infringements established had recently led the competent authorities to
take strict measures and that
the case.
Complainants were informed of this answer.

judicial court was continuing the instruction of

the local

The Commission continues to investigate the case to determine if the installation operates in conformity
with the Waste Framework Directive, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (3) and
whether the measures to restore the site have been applied correctly. A second request for information has
been sent to the French authorities on 7 May 2001.

As regards the issue of shipments of waste the following comments are relevant:

(cid:129) All waste (cid:129) including when shipped (cid:129) is i.a. subject to all the provisions of the Waste Framework
Directive. This means that waste may only be shipped to facilities authorised by the competent
authority designated by the importing Member State according to Articles 9, 10 and 11 of that
Directive. In addition, it is important to note that Member States must ensure that waste management

C 81 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

the requirements under Article 4 of

the Directive in relation to safeguarding
operators fulfil
environmental protection and human health and arrange periodic inspections under Article 13 to
ensure that this is the case. Furthermore, Member States must also ensure that such operators do not
mix different categories of hazardous waste as prescribed by Article 2(2) of Council Directive 91/689/
EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (4).

(cid:129) It follows from the Shipment Regulation, 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, that a
shipment may only be effected if, within a period of 30 days after acknowledgement of receipt of
notification of shipment, none of the competent authorities involved have raised objections on any of
the grounds
the Regulation. According to the fifth indent of
Article 7(4)(a), the countries of destination and dispatch may object to a waste shipment which is
destined for (cid:145)sham-recovery(cid:146). Specifically,
this means that either countries may refuse to permit
shipment if they consider that the ratio of recoverable and non-recoverable waste, the estimated value
of the materials to be recovered or the costs of recovery or disposal of the non-recoverable fraction do
not justify the recovery under economic and environmental considerations.

specified in Article 7(4)(a) of

(cid:129) It is primarily up to the authority of destination to check whether the information provided by the
notifier regarding the intended recovery operation is correct, and if this is not the case, to object to
the shipment.

The Commission is therefore of the opinion that, in this instance, the Shipment Regulation and the Waste
Framework Directive provide a sufficient legal framework to enable the competent authorities to ensure
that appropriate environmental protection steps are to be taken in respect of the shipment involved.

According to the Court of Justice(cid:146)s ruling in the (cid:145)Dusseldorp(cid:146) case C-203/96 the principles of proximity
and self-sufficiency as laid down in the Shipment Regulation and the Waste Framework Directive may not
apply in respect of shipments of waste destined for recovery operations.

It follows from the above description that the Commission is of the opinion that the procedures laid down
in the Shipment Regulation ensure sufficient supervision and control of waste shipments for recovery
within the Community.

(1) The complaint is recorded under the number 98/4317.
(2) Press release IP 99/812 of 29 October 1999.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(4) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991.

(2002/C 81 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2247/01

by JosØ Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(26 July 2001)

Subject: Status of Hong Kong

Press reports indicate that the Hong Kong Administration may be about to adopt a law empowering the
Government of the People(cid:146)s Republic of China to dismiss the territory(cid:146)s leader, which would mean that
Hong Kong risks losing its statutory autonomy and flies in the face of the undertakings given at the time
of the changeover only a few years ago.

These developments apparently come in the wake of negotiations between the Beijing Government and the
Hong Kong authorities, and according to the press, are causing great concern and have lead to widespread
protests. The new law is scheduled for next Wednesday, 18 July.