WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/02 by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission. Call for eco-labels to be financed from taxes on chemicals.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, business administration, consumer information, eco-label, polluter pays principle, public awareness campaign, tax system

C 309 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

relationship, they cannot thereby claim to acquire new rights having no links with their former occupation
(Leclere judgment (C-43/99) (3), point 59). However, it may be deduced from this case law that rights
already acquired, as a migrant worker or the child of a migrant worker, must be preserved.

The case to which the Honourable Member refers in the second question concerns families of Belgian
2.
(or German) nationality living in the Netherlands, whose father is a frontier worker in Belgium or
Germany. In this case the child cannot invoke Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 in relation to the
Netherlands, as neither parent works in the Netherlands. However, this clearly refers to families of EU
citizens who have exercised the right conferred on them by the EC Treaty to reside in a Member State
other than their state of origin (Article 18, EC Treaty). Members of these families can therefore rely on
Article 12 of
the
the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality,
advantages which fall within the scope of Community law (see in particular Grzelczyk (C-184/99) (4) and
D’Hoop (C-224/98) judgments (5)). It follows from the answer to the first question that the right to study
grants in the Netherlands falls within the scope of Community law. The children of the families concerned
are therefore entitled to funding for studies under the same conditions as those applied to the children of
Dutch nationals in the same situation.

for all

3.
The Commission does not know why Dutch students’ entitlement to grants to study in neighbouring
countries is restricted to higher education and excludes senior secondary vocational education. On this
point,
it is up to the Member States to independently lay down the conditions for acquiring and
maintaining the right to benefits such as study grants, provided these conditions comply with Community
law, in particular the ban on discrimination on grounds of nationality. This latter principle does not appear
to be infringed in the case mentioned in the third question.

The Commission has contacted the authorities in the Netherlands to ask their opinion on whether the
cases referred to in questions 1 and 2 do not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, which
would mean they were incompatible with Community law. The Commission will keep the Honourable
Member informed of the outcome of this inquiry.

Judgment of 8 June 1999, ECR 1999, I-3289.

(1)
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the

Community, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
Judgment of 31 May 2001, ECR 2001, I-4265.
Judgment of 20 September 2001, ECR 2001, page I-6193.
Judgment of 11 July 2002, not yet published.

(3)
(4)
(5)

(2002/C 309 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Call for eco-labels to be financed from taxes on chemicals

Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 (1) states that the aim of eco-labelling is to award an eco-
label in order to ‘promote products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle and
to provide consumers with accurate, non-deceptive and scientifically based information on the environ-
mental impact of products’.

In many ways,
the scheme is a success but it suffers from two main drawbacks. Consumers lack
information about eco-labels and companies are faced with major economic and administrative burdens
when a product is due to be awarded such a label.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/213

Can the Commission therefore explain what measures have been taken in accordance with Article 10 of
the Regulation on promotion of the eco-label and state what future initiatives it expects to take under
Article 10?

Can it also state what costs it believes ought to be imposed on companies in order to obtain a licence?
Finally, can it indicate whether it intends to abolish the one-off application fee and the fees payable for the
use of eco-labels, possibly by restructuring the financing of the scheme so that eco-labels are funded from
taxes on hazardous substances and materials, e.g. PVCs, phthalates and brominated flame retardants?
Abolition of the application fee and annual fees would be in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle. In
addition, such a measure would guide production in a more environment-friendly direction, since it would
become attractive to invest
to continue using
hazardous chemical substances in the production process.

improvements and uneconomical

in environmental

(1) OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The Honourable Member is correct in stressing the importance of the Community eco-label, which is a
voluntary instrument and needs to be actively marketed. The different stakeholders involved, Member
States, Commission, competent bodies and interest groups, have in recent years placed much more
emphasis on marketing and promotion than earlier when technical development of criteria took up much
of the resources. As a result, considerable progress has been made in attracting new companies and the
number of licence holders has doubled to 119 in the last 18 months, with over 54 million articles
currently bearing the ‘Flower’ logo.

Nevertheless, there is obviously still much work to be done in promoting the scheme, and in 2001 some
EUR 1,6 million were spent on marketing. As part of the eco-label working plan recently adopted by the
Commission (1) the various persons involved in marketing within the Community Eco-labelling Board have
formed a marketing management group to co-ordinate their actions and to make the best use of the
resources available. Their work can be followed on the Commission eco-label web-site (http://europa.eu.int/
ecolabel), which has over 75 000 visits per month.

The fees are a necessary source of financing for developing and promoting the eco-label, and complement
the direct financing by the Commission and the Member States. The Commission carried out a long
consultation with the different stakeholders in preparing the recent revision of the Decision establishing
the eco-label fees. The structure adopted in November 2000 (2) balanced the different positions of the
stakeholders, and introduced a series of reductions as well as a ceiling. The application fee is between 300
and EUR 1 300, and the annual fee is 0,15 % of the ex-factory sales price with a ceiling of EUR 25 000.
Significant reductions are available for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), developing countries,
and those that have Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) or International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) 14001, with other reductions possible.

From our discussions with different companies, it is clear that the level of fees is not the key factor in
deciding whether or not to apply, and there is no pressure from stakeholders for the time being to further
revise the fee structure. The Commission therefore does not intend to abolish the fees. The Commission
has not foreseen a proposal for a tax on hazardous substances or materials in its work programme.

(1) OJ L 7, 11.1.2002.
(2) OJ L 293, 22.11.2000.