WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/01 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE)and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Poliglás plastic gasification plant in Ribesalbes.
Date: 2001-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, access to information, environmental impact, environmental law, environmental protection, impact study, infringement of EU law, plastics, waste recycling

C 160 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

On the basis of the Honourable Member’s allegations the Commission has begun an inquiry. A letter has
been sent to the Greek authorities requesting information on compliance with Council Directive 75/442/
EEC of 15 July 1975 (3), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, on waste (4).
Once it has received the Greek authorities’ reply the Commission will see whether there is any
incompatibility with the Community measures referred to above and will take whatever steps are necessary
to ensure compliance with Community environment law.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(4) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.

(2002/C 160 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3206/01

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE)
and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(22 November 2001)

Subject: Poliglás plastic gasification plant in Ribesalbes

In its answer to Written Question E-2153/01 (1) the Commission stated that it was willing to open an
investigation into the Ribesalbes Poliglás plant to determine whether the Spanish authorities had failed to
comply with Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on environmental impact assessment. A few days after the question
was sent, an environmental
impact statement was published in the Official Gazette of the Valencian
Generalitat (autonomous regional government). In addition to the fact that it appeared late and a strangely
short time after the question was tabled, it might be the case that the statement is seriously wanting when
measured against Directive 85/337/EEC.

Could the Commission determine whether the environmental impact statement published by the Valencian
Government is in accordance with the requirements laid down by Community legislation?

Is it already in a position to fulfil the undertaking that it gave in the answer to Written Question E-2153/01
and express an opinion as to whether Directive 90/313/EEC (3) on access to environmental information has
also been infringed in connection with the Poliglás plant?

On a separate point, the Commission reply did not deal properly with the matter of the plastics to be
these plastics
the Poliglás plant. According to Community and Spanish legislation,
reprocessed at
(packaging originating from the chemical and ceramics industries) are classed as hazardous waste because
they previously contained other waste of that type. However, both the company and the Valencian
Government consider them to be non-hazardous waste purely because they are washed before being
incinerated. The Commission maintained that it did not have sufficient information on this subject.

Given that the Commission acts as guardian of the Treaties:

A Is it willing to investigate the situation regarding the plastics as described above?

A Does it believe that simply because they have been washed, the plastics no longer need to be

considered hazardous, despite the fact that they have previously contained toxic substances?

A Does Community legislation have anything to say about the question whether the system referred to

above is compatible with health protection and the right to safety?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 118.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/73

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Members for sending the environmental impact statement for the
project referred to.

On the basis of this impact statement the Commission has asked the Spanish authorities to check whether
the studies and recommendations mentioned in it have been implemented.

As regards whether in this case there has been a misapplication of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June
1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment, the Commission would like to draw
the Honourable Member’s attention to the following.

In its answer to the Honourable Members’ written question E-2153/01 (1), the Commission said that solely
on the basis of the information reported in the written question it was unable to establish whether the
Spanish authorities had received a request for access to information to which they may have reacted in a
way that might have been in breach of the Directive. The Commission does not in fact know if a request
for information was sent, and if it was, what might have been its content, which authority might have
been the intended recipient and what reply, if any, might have been given.

Should the authority which received a request for access have refused it in breach of the Directive, it
would be for the person who made the request to seek a review as provided for both in Article 4 of the
Directive and in the Spanish legislation transposing it.

Lacking the information it would need to determine whether Directive 90/313/EEC has been disregarded,
the Commission did not think this question could be mentioned in the request for information which it
sent to the Spanish authorities subsequent to written question E-2153/01.

As regards the problems with plastics waste mentioned in the written questions, the Commission has asked
to be advised of the measures taken by the competent authorities, in order to satisfy itself that the washing
system is sufficient to reduce the quantities of dangerous residues present in the packaging to below the
thresholds laid down in the hazardous waste legislation and consequently sufficient to remove the harmful
characteristics of the packaging and guarantee that the plastics recovered (after washing) no longer
constitute hazardous waste.

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 118.

(2002/C 160 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3211/01

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Residence permits for same-sex married couples

(22 November 2001)

In your answer to my questionNoP-2438/01 (1) on the consequences of the introduction of same-sex
marriages in the Netherlands, you say that the Commission does not have the powers to compel a Member
State to recognise such marriages or to grant residence permits on the basis of such marriages. You take
the view that this reflects reality, irrespective of whether the couple come from a Member State or a third
country. I do not doubt that you do not have these powers. That was not my question. I only asked
whether you were satisfied that there would be no problems with residence permits.

In your answer you say that the Commission has given instructions that, if an official makes a same-sex
marriage under Dutch law, this marriage should be treated in the same way as any other marriage.

Can the Commission tell me whether any Member States have refused to grant a residence permit to the
spouse of an official of one of the institutions and, if so, in how many cases?