WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/02 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The infringement proceedings formally notified to the UK Government in October 2001 in respect of the issue of Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, United Kingdom, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU), interpretation of the law, waste management

C 301 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

which fulfill the criteria to be free of FMD (with vaccination). This was agreed at the Standing Veterinary
Committee held on 16 January 2002 and came into effect as of the 1 February 2002.

Argentina can export in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)-quota ‘high quality beef’
on a yearly basis from 1 July to 30 June 28 000 tonnes of this product to the Community. However
because of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 2001, Argentina could only start to export in the
framework of
the quota-year 2001/2002 from beginning of February 2002 after the prohibition
concerning foot-and-mouth disease was lifted. Therefore, for obvious reasons much more beef from
Argentina was imported in the spring of 2002 than during the same period the years before.

3.

Current producer prices reported to the Commission do not show a particular deterioration.

In the management of the market the Community has to comply with the obligations taken under

4.
multilateral trade agreements, e.g. preferential import of high quality beef.

(1) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 20, 23.1.2002.

(2002/C 301 E/160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: The infringement proceedings formally notified to the UK Government in October 2001 in respect

of the issue of Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use

Whereas in 1992 the UK Parliament enacted the Planning and Compensation Act which purportedly
altered the UK law relating to town and country planning and the environmental provisions previously
reported to the Commission (in compliance with Art. 16 of the Waste Framework Directive):

Can the Commission say what steps it is taking:

1.

2.

to bring to a speedy conclusion the infringement proceedings formally notified to the UK Government
in October 2001 in respect of the issue of Certificates of Lawfulness of Existing Use for the purposes
of the town and country planning system and the protection of the environment where the use
certified as lawful involves the uncontrolled transportation and deposit of waste?

to ensure that any damage to the environment in the UK caused by such uncontrolled transportation
and deposit of waste that has been declared lawful by the UK Government since 1992 is remedied
without delay?

3. with respect to the complaint made to the Commission on 21 November 2001 by Mr Martin Philcox,
a citizen of the UK, that the UK had infringed Art. 234 of the Treaty by failing to ensure that where a
question as to the interpretation of the EC Waste Framework Directive was raised before a UK court
against whose decision there was no judicial remedy under UK law, that court failed to bring the
matter before the Court of Justice?

4.

to remind the UK of its strict obligation to report to the Commission all legislation enacted by the UK
Parliament which purports to vary the legislative provisions previously reported to the Commission as
implementing EC Directives?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/149

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

The Honourable Member refers to ongoing infringement proceedings concerning a scrap yard which
1.
operated as a waste site for a number of years without planning permission or a waste management
licence. Subsequently, the site was given deemed planning permission on the basis that it had been
operating for over 10 years. The circumstances disclosed by the complainant raised more general issues
concerning the United Kingdom process of automatically granting so called Lawful Development
Certificates (‘LDCs’) for such developments.

A Letter of Formal Notice was sent to the United Kingdom, outlining the Commission’s concern that this
process may circumvent, firstly, Articles 4,9 and 10 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1),
on waste as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2), which require Member
States to ensure that waste disposal and recovery operations are carried out with a valid permit, to meet
the objectives set out in Article 4 thereof. Although, in England and Wales, the Environment Agency is the
main waste permitting authority, local planning authorities also carry out part of the Waste Directive’s
obligations to ensure that a waste development does not cause nuisance/harm to local amenity. These
issues may not properly be considered where LDCs have been granted. Secondly, LDCs may also
circumvent Articles 2(1) and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the
effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (3), as amended by Council Directive
97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (4), by effectively giving development consent
to projects without an
environmental impact assessment or without considering the need for one.

The United Kingdom has recently responded to the Letter of Formal Notice and this response is now being
assessed by the Commission. Any further course of action will depend on the on the outcome of that
assessment.

Until the present infringement proceedings have been resolved,

2.
it is too early to predict what
measures would be appropriate as a result of those proceedings. However, it should be noted that there are
currently no specific Community provisions in force concerning environmental liability.

3. and 4.
The final question concerns one of a number of matters recently drawn to the Commission’s
attention, which are currently being assessed in the context of a another complaint file. However, since
that complaint raises similar issues to those already pending before the Court of Justice in Case C-99/00,
another preliminary ruling case under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, the complainant has been advised that
the Commission proposes to await the outcome of that case before completing its’ assessment of the
complaint.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2002/C 301 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1448/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Level playing field for small EU projects

In sparsely populated areas,
resources. However, they play a central role in implementing EU-funded projects.

local authorities, businesses, and organisations are small and have few