WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/01 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. German Regulation on packaging — barrier to trade for importers of beverages.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, appeal to the Court (EU), application of EU law, deposit on a polluting product, packaging, waste recycling

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/53

The Agenda 2000 Reform of the CAP further moved away from price support and established a clear link
between direct support to producers and environmental protection requirements. CAP does not provide
any more for input subsidies. Member States are required to appropriate environmental measures in view
of the situation of the land used or production concerned and which reflect environmental effects. There
are a number of options to achieve this including through agri-environment, general mandatory
requirements and specific environmental requirements constituting a condition for direct payments. Thus
Member States are now in a position to ensure that direct support payments to producers do not lead to
environmental problems.
In the future it will be possible to examine the extent of Member States
commitment.

The Commission stated in its Communication ‘Elements for a Strategy for the Integration of Environmental
Protection Requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy’ (2) that ‘… it is possible now to distinguish
some types of subsidies clearly incompatible with a sustainable exploitation from those contributing to
positive conservation effects. In the short term, the’perverse‘subsidies should be removed and converted
progressively into funds to finance positive actions.’ Moreover, in its ‘Green Paper on the future of the
Common Fisheries Policy’ (3), the Commission has stated that ‘… it may be necessary for the Community
to consider whether and under what conditions investment aid for the fishing fleet might be phased out, in
order to eliminate its counter-productive effects on fishing capacity, and Community aid redirected to
focus exclusively on the further reduction of the fleet …’.

The Commission has actively participated in studies carried out by international organisations on the size
and effects of subsidies to fisheries on the environment and the sustainable use of fishery resources. One
good illustration in this regard is the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Committee for Fisheries’ study on ‘Transition to Responsible: Economic and Policy Implications’ (4).

(1) COM(2001) 264 final.
(2) COM(2001) 143 final.
(3) COM(2001) 135 final.
(4)

ISBN: 9264171606.

(2002/C 134 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2603/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: German Regulation on packaging < barrier to trade for importers of beverages

The present German Regulation on packaging provides for compulsory deposits on the packaging of
certain beverages, to take effect when the average figure for reuse falls below the 72 % ascertained in 1991.

Not until January 2001 did the Commission, after years of deliberation and preliminary procedures, decide
to bring an action against Germany before the Court of Justice relating to this reuse rate and the
threatened imposition of compulsory deposits. The measure constitutes a barrier to trade in all beverages
affected. The compulsory deposit is not even proportionate to the intention of protecting the environment.
The stated aim is to encourage reuse. The cost is huge, disproportionate and will finally be borne by the
consumer. As many studies have shown, the effect will be to undermine rather than promote the
attainment of this goal. Regardless of the reservations over the German Regulation which date back to
1991, the German Minister of the Environment intends to bring compulsory deposits into effect by
publishing the amount by which individual classes of beverage fall below the reuse quotas set in 1991
(milk 20 %, mineral water 91 %, beer 82 %, wine 28 %).

C 134 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

1. What action does the Commission intend to take if the compulsory deposit system is triggered by
publication of the failure to achieve these percentages?

2. What does the Commission intend to do, in view of the impending publication of the failure to
achieve the percentages, speedily, efficiently and effectively to guarantee the free movement of goods?

3. What means does the Commission have at its disposal for this purpose?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(21 December 2001)

The publication of the reuse quota results, which is the trigger under the existing German Packaging
Ordinance, has not been released yet. Thus, it is still unclear if, when and for which categories of drinks
the deposit obligation will apply. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to take a view in this
respect.

The Commission has thoroughly assessed the existing German Packaging Ordinance with a view to its
compatibility with the European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
packaging and packaging waste (1) and with the Internal Market rules. In March 2001 it decided to instigate
proceedings against Germany before the Court of Justice, because it takes the view that the reuse quota
system set up by the existing German Packaging Ordinance infringes EC law insofar as mineral waters are
concerned that have to be filled at source (2).

As the ‘guardian of the Treaties’ (Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC-Treaty), the Commission must
ensure the respect by the Member States of Community law. According to Article 226 (ex Article 169) of
the EC-Treaty, the Commission opens an infringement procedure, if a Member State has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the Treaty.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) The Commission has reserved its right to consider, at a later stage, the question of the compatibility of the German
justification and other Community

Packaging Regulation 1998 in particular in the light of its environmental
requirements as regards beverages other than natural mineral water (e.g. wine).

(2002/C 134 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2605/01

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Transport of animals from accession countries to the European Union

In January 2001 the European Commission presented a report to the Council on the experience acquired
by Member States since the implementation of the 1995 Directive on the protection of animals during
transport.

This report reveals:

< the low level of priority given in certain Member States to implementing the Directive;

< the use of poorly-designed, ill-maintained and dirty vehicles;

< non-compliant route plans and insufficient resting time for the animals;

< negligence and poor handling of animals;

< the transport of unfit animals and insufficient ventilation in vehicles.