WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/02 by Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission. Use of purifying muds in agriculture.
Date: 2002-07-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, fertiliser industry, hides and furskins industry, industrial waste, sewage sludge, soil conditioning, soil protection, technical regulations, waste recycling

C 309 E/174

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Nevertheless, the Commission wants to be better able, within the constraints of its protocol and diplomatic
obligations, to respond to requests for information submitted by interested persons. Consequently,
it
intends to take measures to ensure that, in future, the kind of information to which the Honourable
Member refers is more easily accessible.

(2002/C 309 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1925/02

by Guido Sacconi (PSE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Use of purifying muds in agriculture

A ministerial decree adopted in Italy on 7 December 2001 sets out a list of fertilisers including ‘integrated
hide’, a product obtained ‘from a mixture of hide and proteic muds stabilised by the tanning cycle’.

It is stated in the preamble to this decree that ‘the opinion of the European Commission has been taken
into account’.

Production of such a ‘fertiliser’ would lead to the use in agriculture of purifying muds of obviously
industrial origin, free of qualitative or quantitative restrictions, with no registration of their use and with
no preventive analysis of the soil concerned. This would be in flagrant breach of the spirit and letter of
Council Directive 86/278/EEC (1) of 12 June 1986 (incorporated into Italian law by Decree-Law 99/1992).

The free movement of goods would also mean that this ‘fertiliser’ could be marketed and used throughout
the Union.

Can the Commission confirm:

1. whether a favourable opinion has been given regarding the adoption of this provision?

2.

If so, can it explain the terms in which that opinion was expressed?

3. Does the Commission intend to intervene to prevent the inappropriate use of purifying muds in

agriculture?

(1) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986, p. 6.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

In the context of the notification procedure provided for by Directive 98/34/EC (1) of the Parliament
1.
and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field
of technical standards and regulations, Italy notified a draft decree amending Annexes 1B and 3 of Act
No 748 of 19 October 1984 (the Italian Fertiliser Act).

The Commission received this notification (2) on 14 March 2000 and did not react to it. The absence
2.
of reaction in the framework of the above mentioned notification procedure does not mean approval of
the notified draft;
the measure may reveal problems of
compatibility with Community law.
It has also to be added that Article 8, paragraph 5 of Directive
98/34/EC provides that ‘the absence of reaction from the Commission under this Directive to a draft
technical regulation shall not prejudice any decision which might be taken under other Community acts’.

the practical application of

for example,

Council Directive 86/278/EEC (3) of 12 June 1986 on the protection of the environment, and in
3.
particular of the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture defines sludge as ‘residual sludge from
sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters and from other sewage plants treating waste waters
of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste waters’ (Article 2(a)(i) of the Directive).

Industrial waste waters, such as those originating from a tannery, cannot be regarded as domestic or urban
waste waters. Neither can they be considered of a composition similar to domestic and urban waste water.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/175

Thus, the requirements of Directive 86/278/EEC are not applicable to sludges of industrial origin. The
requirements for the use of sludge from industrial installations have to be laid down by Member States in
accordance with Article 3(2), second indent, of Directive 86/278/EEC.

The Italian decree mentioned by the Honourable Member in his Written Question allows the use of
tannery sludges as an organic complement to balance the nitrogen:carbon ratio. The concentration of
hexavalent chromium (Cr VI) cannot be in any case higher than 0,5 ppm.

(1) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.
(2) 2000-0107-I.
(3) OJ L 181, 4.7.1986.

(2002/C 309 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1931/02

by Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Preliminary draft law governing the sale, consumption and advertising of alcoholic drinks in Spain

The Spanish Ministry of the Interior is finalising a draft law one purpose of which is to govern the
advertising of alcoholic drinks.

As it stands at present, the proposal provides for the following measures on the advertising of alcoholic
drinks:

(cid:1) a total ban on television advertising between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m.;

(cid:1) authorised radio advertising to be accompanied by a compulsory message drawing attention to the

harmful effects of alcohol consumption, particularly for young people;

(cid:1) a ban on outdoor advertising on the public highway of any alcoholic drink with a volume higher than

20 %;

(cid:1) a ban on targeting advertising campaigns at young people under 18;

(cid:1) a ban on advertising in publications aimed at young people.

The Court of Justice of the European Communities, in the conclusions to Case C-405/98 (question referred
for a preliminary ruling by the Swedish courts (cid:1) Gourmet case) condemned disproportionate restrictions
on advertising,
judging them to be incompatible with the single market. They were deemed to favour
domestic production to the detriment of products originating in other Member States.

The Commission is finalising a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Communities of a
complaint concerning certain restrictions under the Evin Law in France which are incompatible with the
operation of the single market in commercial communication services.

In view of these considerations, could the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Do the restrictions that may be introduced in Spain and the difficulty experienced in making imported
products known on the market not constitute an obstacle to the single market for producers of
alcoholic drinks?

2. Would the restrictions that might be placed on radio and television broadcasts coming from other
Member States constitute a similar set of circumstances as those contained in the Commission’s
complaint against France concerning certain aspects of the Evin Law?

3. To what extent must the Spanish authorities adhere to the principle of proportionality between ends

and means?

4. How could the Commission cooperate with the Spanish authorities to ensure that the principle of

proportionality is adhered to?