WRITTEN QUESTION P-1557/02 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Exploitation of slag from the steel industry.
Date: 2002-05-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, Finland, environmental law, environmental protection, interpretation of the law, iron and steel industry, metal by-product, waste recycling

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/179

3. Does the Commission intend to propose initiatives with a view to legislative harmonisation at

European level in the area of copyright protection and anti-piracy measures?

4. Can the Commission state its general position on these matters?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

1.
The Commission would like to recall the consultation process launched on this issue via the Green
Paper ‘Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Single Market’ of 15 October 1998 (1). Music piracy was
one of the many subjects covered. The Commission then adopted a Communication in November 2000 (2),
announcing a series of practical measures intended to strengthen and improve the fight against
counterfeiting and piracy in the European Single Market.

2.
In the framework of this Action Plan, the Commission launched a study on a methodology for
collecting, analysing and comparing data in the Single Market. This last item is of particular importance for
the obtention of reliable figures that will enable the interested parties,
the Member States and the
Commission to define and apply appropriate measures for combating counterfeiting and piracy. The scope
of this study is very wide and will cover aspects of Internet piracy. The results of this study are expected in
July 2002.

3.
The main initiative announced in this Action Plan is a proposal for a Directive aiming to harmonise
Member States’ laws on the means of enforcing Intellectual Property Rights. It is hoped this proposal will
be adopted by the Commission during the course of this year. Over and above this Directive, the
Commission would also like to recall the acquis communautaire in the field of copyright and related rights.
In particular, Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001 of the Parliament and of the Council on the
harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (3) and Council
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related
intellectual property (4), already provide for some provisions which are
to copyright
important means to fight against piracy.

in the field of

4. Music piracy is a matter of concern for the Commission. Counterfeiting and piracy have negative
effects on the functioning of the Internal Market,
jeopardising innovation, creativity, employment and
competitivity. The Commission believes that these initiatives will help strengthening the fight against
music piracy, including within the digital environment.

(1) COM(98) 569 final.
(2) COM(2000) 789 final.
(3) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.
(4) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992.

(2002/C 301 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1557/02

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Exploitation of slag from the steel industry

(31 May 2002)

The Northern Finland environmental permit issuing authority is complying with the EU’s waste directive
by classifying slag produced as a side-product by the steel industry under the heading of waste. This non-
hazardous product, which may basically be regarded as environmentally friendly or indeed as a fertiliser, is
used as a foundation material in road-building and also in the foundations of buildings. Classifying it as
waste does not help its exploitation in any way, and makes it more difficult in many respects.

C 301 E/180

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

The EU’s hierarchy of waste starts from the premise that the avoidance of waste should be promoted; now
the waste directive is being interpreted in such a way that its end result is the opposite.

Does the Commission consider that
accordance with sustainable development?

the directive is being interpreted in Finland correctly and in

Does the Commission consider that it should change its practice when issuing its guidelines to local
authorities, or should make these guidelines more precise, so that natural side-branches of industry can be
exploited for the purpose of avoiding the occurrence of waste and making its exploitation more efficient?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended, aims to protect human health and
environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of
waste. The definition of waste is fixed in Article 1(a) of the directive: ‘waste’ shall mean any substance or
object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard.

Slag generated as a production residue from the steel industry is waste for the purposes of Directive 75/
442/EEC. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, certain circumstances may
constitute evidence that the holder has discarded the substance or intends to do so. That will be the case,
in particular, where the substance used is a production residue, that is to say a product not in itself sought
for a subsequent use (2). In addition, Annex I of the Directive specifically includes the following category of
waste: ‘Q8 Residues of industrial processes (e.g. slags, still bottoms, etc.)’. Moreover, unprocessed slag from
the iron and steel industry is included as an entry in the consolidated lists of wastes at Community level (3)
as well as in the green list of waste annexed to the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (4). The
Commission has therefore no reason to consider from the information supplied by the Honourable
Member that the Directive is being interpreted incorrectly or not in accordance with the principle of
sustainable development in Finland.

Article 3 of Directive 75/442/EEC requires that Member States take appropriate measures to encourage
firstly the prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmfulness, and secondly the recovery of
waste by means of recycling, re-use or reclamation or any other process with a view to extracting
secondary raw materials or the use of waste as a source of energy.

The classification of slag from the steel industry as waste does not prevent this material to be managed in
the more sustainable way. The principal goal of the Community waste legislation is to ensure that all
substances and objects that are discarded, intended or required to be discarded, are recovered or disposed
of without endangering human health or using processes that could harm the environment (5). In this
context, as recognised by the Court of Justice, notwithstanding that a particular waste may not pose any
threat to health and the environment by virtue of its composition, the way that it is managed may well
represent a potential source of harm to, and pollution of, the environment (6).

In order to encourage the sustainable management of waste, such as those referred to by the Honourable
Member, Member States have the possibility in Article 11(b) of the Directive to exempt establishments or
undertakings that carry out waste recovery operations from permitting requirements, subject to certain
conditions, requiring them simply to be registered with the competent authorities. This provision thus
gives Member States means of facilitating the recovery of waste materials by reducing the administrative
requirements to the minimum level compatible with the Directive’s environmental protection objectives.
Furthermore, the green list entry of steel industry slag in the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93
means that minimal controls are required at Community level with respect
to the transboundary
movement of this waste. Therefore, the Commission does not see any reason to change the current

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/181

position at Community level with regard to the aspects of waste avoidance and exploitation of waste, both
of which are duly promoted and facilitated under the terms of Community environmental legislation.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991) and

Commission Decision 96/350/EC (OJ L 135, 6.6.1996).

(2) See Cases C-418/97 and 419/97 ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd [2000] ECR I-4475 (especially paragraphs 83-88 of
judgment of 18.4.2002 (not yet reported) at paragraph 32 of

judgment) and Case C-9/00 Palin Granit Oy,
judgment.

(3) Entry ‘10 02 02 unprocessed slag’ of Commission Decision 2000/532/EC of 3 May 2000 replacing Decision
94/3/EC establishing a list of wastes pursuant to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on waste and Council
Decision 94/404/EC establishing a list of hazardous waste pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689/EC
on hazardous waste (OJ L 226, 6.9.2000) as amended by Commission Decision 2001/118/EC (OJ L 47, 16.2.2001),
Commission Decision 2001/119/EC (OJ L 47, 16.2.2001) and Council Decision 2001/573/EC (OJ L 203,
28.7.2001).

(4) Entry ‘GC 070 ex 261900 Slags arising from the manufacture of iron and carbon steel (including low alloy steel)
excluding those slags which have been specifically produced to meet both national and relevant international
requirements and standards’ (this entry covers the use of such slags as a source of titanium dioxide and vanadium)
in Annex II of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (OJ L 30, 6.2.1993).

(5) See in particular Articles 4 and 8 of Directive 75/442/EEC.
(6) Case C-9/00 Palin Granit Oy, supra. at paragraphs 47-49 of judgment.

(2002/C 301 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1566/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 May 2002)

Subject: Conflict of interest in DG-Transport

The Commission adopted in September 2001 a Decision (C (2001) 2654) establishing an Indicative
Multiannual Programme for the granting of Community Financial Aid to TEN transport projects for the
period 2001-2006. One of the chosen priorities is a Greek motorway, Via Egnatia (priority no 7).
According to the Decision one of the selected beneficiary entities is Egnatia S.A., which is chaired and
directed by the husband of the competent Head of Unit under the instructions of whom the financial
assistance is supervised.

Will the Commission agree that there is a serious conflict of interest?

Can the Commission inform the Parliament of the following:

(cid:1) How much EU funding was given to this project in 2001 and in 2002?

(cid:1) What is the backing national decision for providing the 50 % national contribution?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2002)

The Indicative Multiannual Programme (IMP) to which the Honourable Member refers was adopted by the
Commission on 19 September 2001 in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2236/95 of 18 September 1995 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid
in the field of trans-European networks (1) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1655/1999 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 1999 (2).

For the period 2001-2006 the IMP includes EUR 30 million for studies and technical support measures for
the Egnatia section of priority project No 7 (PATHE-EGNATIA), part of the trans-European transport
network (TEN-T). In response to an application made by the Greek Ministry of the Economy, following the
Commission’s analysis and the usual comitology procedure, financial aid under the 2001-2006 TEN-T
budget was fixed in indicative terms in the IMP. The beneficiary is the Greek Minister for the Economy.
Egnatia Odos SA is the project manager.