WRITTEN QUESTION E-2602/01 by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission. German Regulation on packaging — inadequate protection for the free movement of goods and beverage importers.
Date: 2001-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, beverage, deposit on a polluting product, national law, packaging, restriction on competition, single market, waste recycling

C 147 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2602/01

by Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: German Regulation on packaging (cid:28) inadequate protection for the free movement of goods and

beverage importers

The current German Regulation on packaging lays down compulsory deposits on packaging of specific
beverages. This requirement is in suspension so long as the reuse rate of 72 % set in 1991 is met. The
actual introduction of compulsory deposits for certain beverages is now a real threat.

This and similar cases have shown that not enough is being done to guarantee the free movement of
goods, which was enshrined in Directive 94/62/EC (1) alongside and on an equal footing with the principle
of protection of the environment. To be effective, protection must also be speedily enforceable and
enforced. Scrutiny of a measure and the initiation of a procedure, as for example in the pending case of
the Danish ban on cans, at present regularly takes several years. A compulsory deposit system could
destroy the livelihood of a beverage importer within months.

Does the Commission believe that, with the present length of time being taken by deliberations and

1.
procedures, the principle of the free movement of goods is being adequately guaranteed?

Does the Commission believe, in the light of past experience, that the packaging directive 94/62/EC

2.
is an effective measure to prevent obstacles to trade?

3.
Is the Commission considering measures to be adopted in the course of the review of Directive
94/62/EC to give effective and speedy protection for the operation of the internal market as well as
providing a high degree of environmental protection?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 2001)

As mentioned in the question, the Commission has scrutinised in detail the question of the compatibility
including those
of the German Regulation on packaging with all elements of the packaging Directive,
concerning the internal market. It has concluded that the German Regulation on packaging contains an
encouragement to discriminate against foreign mineral waters which, under Council Directive 80/777/EEC
of 15 July 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation and
marketing of natural mineral waters (1), have to be bottled at source. It was decided in March 2001 to
bring the matter before the European Court of Justice. This decision was not carried out first of all due to
notification of an amendment of the packaging text (2). Since this notification has been withdrawn, the
Commission will alter its position at its next relevant meeting.

The packaging Directive is intended to harmonise aspects of both environmental protection and the
internal market. As regards the effects on the internal market, the waste management systems of the
individual Member States can be said to have become harmonised since the entry into force of the
Directive and there has been an upward harmonisation as regards recycling quotas as well. The question as
to how far further steps should be taken to move forward the harmonisation process still remains to be
discussed in detail. This opinion-forming and consolidation process is one of the aims of drawing up the
Thematic Strategy on Recycling.

Due to the urgent need to set new recycling targets under Article 6 of the recycling Directive, the
amendment now in preparation will for the most part confine itself to these targets. An amendment

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/33

bringing in matters of reuse, the role of deposit systems and the associated internal market aspects should
be made the subject of a factual analysis, which has not been done sufficiently so far, and wider discussion.
The Commission is planning, however, to take just such an approach, possibly in the framework of the
Thematic Strategy on Recycling.

(1) OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.
(2) The Commission reserves the right to examine at a later date the question of the compatibility of the German
Regulation on packaging of 1998, particularly in terms of its justification in the light of environment policy and
other Community requirements, with regard to beverages other than mineral water.

(2002/C 147 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2635/01

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) and Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of minorities (cid:28) closure of the Sorbian school in Crostwitz

(2 October 2001)

The regional government of Saxony (Germany) has announced the future closure of the Sorbian school in
Crostwitz. This school is one of the only two Sorbian schools where full education is given in the Sorbian
language (there are two other Sorbian-German bilingual schools in the region). The official argument
seems to be a lack of children to keep a class open, but it is difficult to understand why the authorities
have chosen to close a full Sorbian school rather than a bilingual one. There are special circumstances
where the minimum figures for classes do not apply (the classes for highly talented children in schools for
example) and such exceptions should be considered for the protection of minorities.

Does the Commission consider this attitude compatible with the European values of fundamental rights
and cultural and linguistic diversity? Has the Commission asked for any information from the German
authorities on this issue?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Concerning the case referred to by the Honourable Member,
the Commission does not have any
information to suggest incorrect application of Community law or a serious and persistent violation within
the meaning of Article 7 (ex-Article 4) of the EC Treaty. It refers the Honourable Member to Article 149
(ex-Article 126) of the EC Treaty, according to which each Member State is responsible for the organisation
of education and for its linguistic diversity. The Commission would also point to the efforts made to
promote linguistic diversity, especially in connection with the European Year of Languages, and the
Community’s contribution to the flourishing of the cultures of the Member States while respecting their
national and regional diversity, in accordance with Article 151 (ex-Article 128) of the EC Treaty.

For more details, the Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to written question
E-2538/01 from Mr Modrow (1) on the same subject.

(1) See page 27.

(2002/C 147 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2647/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Council

(3 October 2001)

Subject: The anomalous situation of non-EU nationals permitted to vote in UK elections

Is the Council aware that non-EU citizens from Commonwealth countries who have for historical reasons
been allowed to vote in all UK elections (including European elections) are sometimes subject to visa