WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Harmful gas emissions from the Reggio Emilia incinerator between 1 January 2002 and 10 February 2002.
Date: 2002-04-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Emilia-Romagna, air quality, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental standard, exchange of information, waste incineration

C 229 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/02

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Subject: The rights of ethnic minorities to be granted licences in St Lucia

In response to an enquiry from one of my constituents, regarding a manifesto pledge of the St Lucian
Labour Party to introduce ‘a licensing regime whereby only indigenous operators will be granted licences
to operate key ancillary businesses,’ what is the Commission’s position on whether this policy would
breach European law on the rights of ethnic minorities if applied in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

(the
The Commission notes that the question concerned is phrased in terms which are too general
situation reported by the Honourable Member relates to the island of St Lucia, outside the territory of the
European Union) for it to be able to provide an appropriate, detailed answer.

The Commission notes,
particularly in so far as:

in particular, that several

important elements are not stated in the question,

1 it is not specified whether a particular Member State is concerned;

1 the legal source for restricting the granting of the licences in question is not identified: it is therefore
not known whether this concerns legislation or public- authority practice, public regulation or action
by a private entity;

1 the field concerned is not specified in sufficient detail: it is therefore impossible, by mere reference to
‘key ancillary businesses’, to establish whether it concerns one or more economic activities under the
terms of the EC Treaty, with respect to which it might be necessary to apply the principles of the
internal market and, in particular, the rules relating to one or more freedoms of movement;

1 the question does not state the reasons which might be put forward by the bodies or subjects
concerned in order to support this intended action: it is therefore impossible to know whether it
involves overriding requirements of public interest within the meaning of the case law of the Court of
Justice, and whether there is a cause-and-effect link between the intended measure and the possible
objective.

In the absence of the above-mentioned elements,
the
Commission is not in a position to reach any kind of assessment, even in summary terms, and cannot
provide him with a more detailed answer. In order to do this, the Commission would need additional
information relating to the various aspects mentioned above.

the Honourable Member will appreciate that

(2002/C 229 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0940/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Harmful gas emissions from the Reggio Emilia incinerator between 1 January 2002 and

10 February 2002

Between 1 January and 10 February 2002 the waste incinerator situated in via dei Gonzaga in Reggio
Emilia in the Italian region of Emilia Romagna, managed by the firm AGAC under the control of the local
authority, repeatedly emitted harmful substances such as carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid and total
organic carbon. The population and the authorities were not informed about the harmful emissions and
the excessive emission levels at the appropriate time. The facts only emerged one month later, when a
person living near the incinerator complained of feeling unwell.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/161

Can the Commission say whether the silence on the part of those who run the plant, and who did not
even inform the Reggio Emilia provincial authorities during the 40 days when the harmful substances were
being emitted, infringes Community public health and environmental standards?

Does the incinerator in question comply with European legislation on the environment and public health?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2002)

A number of provisions of Community law set out the requirements for the operator of an incineration
plant to inform a competent authority in the event of the Community limit values for emissions from an
incineration plant being exceeded.

In the case of municipal waste incineration, Article 8 of Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on
the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (1) requires that a competent
authority be informed as soon as possible should the measurements taken show that the limit values laid
down in the Directive have been exceeded. The operator is also required to ensure that the plant does not
continue to operate while failing to comply with emission standards and shall take the necessary measures
to ensure it is modified or no longer operated. Additional requirements regarding breakdown etc. are also
set out in this article. In the case of the incineration of hazardous waste similar provisions are set down in
Article 12 of Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 (2).

The Commission will ask the Italian authorities whether the relevant requirements were complied with in
this case and whether the incinerator complies with the relevant Community emission standards and will
inform the Honourable Member accordingly.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2002/C 229 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0941/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Language discrimination 1 English native speakers

In its answer to question E-3572/01 (1),
the
formulation ‘native speaker or person with an equivalent knowledge’ is acceptable under Community law.
Nevertheless, this formulation gives the impression that an employer is primarily seeking a native speaker.
Under Belgium’s equal opportunities policy it was decided some years ago, among other things, that
references to gender (M/F) or age would no longer be allowed to appear in job adverts.

the Commission states that

the opinion that

is of

it

Does the Commission also feel that this ruling in Belgium is a better way of preventing discrimination and
will it therefore be urging the Member States to ban completely the discriminatory formulation ‘native
speaker’ from job advertisements throughout the European Union?

Will it beforehand insist with its contracting parties that they are henceforward no longer to use the
discriminatory term ‘native speaker’ under penalty of cancellation of their contract with the Commission?

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 144.