WRITTEN QUESTION P-2342/02 by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission. Thermal plasmas.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: new technology, recycling technology, waste management

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/155

2. To which precise projects or actions were the GRD 778 217 320 (EUR 2 283 836,6) allocated in
connection with work on the Lagana sea park, Xanthe (cid:1) biotope management project, which was co-
financed by the European Regional Development Fund (operational programme on the environment)
and which was geared to protecting the Caretta-caretta turtle, and which natural or legal persons
(ministry responsible, NGOs, administrative bodies, etc.) received the Community funding concerned?

3. What view will the Commission take of instances of maladministration of Community co-funding for

environmental protection, and how will it guarantee optimum use of Community funds?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

In accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (1), responsibility as regards selecting projects eligible for Community
part-financing and as regards monitoring their implementation rests with the national or regional
authorities concerned. The Commission therefore does not hold comprehensive information, which is
supplied only in the event of checks, and would ask the Honourable Member to request that information
from the managing authority for the Environment operational programme (Evritania and Itea Street 2,
11523 Athens, telephone 010-6971700).

The enclosed detailed table on the programmes part-financed under LIFE is being sent
Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

to the

The Commission would point out that any irregularity in relation to Community funding, whatever that
funding’s purpose, incurs the penalties provided for by the rules in force. The Regulation referred to above
also provides for enhanced planning, monitoring and control structures to be established with a view to
ensuring the proper use of funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2003/C 52 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2342/02

by Jean-Claude Martinez (NI) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Thermal plasmas

According to a number of scientists and in particular the La Roche environmental laboratory, thermal
plasma treatment could be used to process waste (cid:1) including contaminated meal.

Can the Commission Directorate-General for the Environment give its views on such waste processing by
plasma torches?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2002)

The Commission organises an information exchange between Member States and industry concerned on
best available techniques (BAT) in industrial activities which are covered by the Council Directive 96/61/EC
of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) (1). The work is co-
ordinated by the European IPPC Bureau, which is hosted by the Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies of the Joint Research Centre in Seville, Spain.

C 52 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

One of the industrial activity sectors where such an information exchange takes place is the thermal
treatment of waste. In this work several techniques for thermal waste treatment are scrutinized and at a
later stage it
is determined whether the discussed techniques are considered as BAT or emerging
techniques. Plasma treatment could be discussed in such an information exchange if detailed information
on the technique were to be delivered to the European IPPC Bureau.

For the time being the Commission is not able to give any further assessment of this technology.

As regards the needs for research, the Commission is supporting research and technological development
projects. For instance, one project deals with the vitrification of hospitals waste.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2003/C 52 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2344/02

by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 July 2002)

Subject: Unsolicited mail

Unsolicited mail and telephone calls are not only considered a nuisance to many people throughout
Europe but can also be intimidating, misleading and confusing, especially for the most vulnerable members
of society who may be led to believe that they should part with their money, banking details, credit card
numbers or other personal details.

Could the Commission say what can be done on a Europe-wide basis to protect consumers from receiving
misleading unsolicited mail, often from companies based outside the consumer’s Member State or outside
the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2002)

The Honourable Member has raised the issue of unsolicited mail and telephone calls. The Commission’s
reply assumes that unsolicited mail is not limited to unsolicited correspondence via the post, and that the
question is intended also to cover electronic mail.

Community law has already addressed the problem of telephone calls and unsolicited mail directed to
consumers, including so-called e-mail ‘spam’.

Directive 97/66/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 15 October 1997, concerning the processing
of personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1),
is of particular
relevance for unsolicited calls for direct marketing purposes. Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and
of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in
the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (2), which
applies from 31 October 2003, will replace and strengthen the rules concerning the processing of personal
data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector. Under this new Directive,
which was adopted under the co-decision procedure, e-mails or SMS sent for direct marketing purposes to
natural persons will only be allowed where users have given their prior consent (so-called opt-in system),
except in the context of an existing relationship and then only for similar products (see Article 13 of this
Directive) as it is already the case for unsolicited faxes and telephone calls via automatic calling machines.
As regards direct marketing calls ‘with human intervention’, Member States will still be able to decide
between an opt-in and an opt-out regime. Disguising the identity of the sender or providing an invalid
return address will be prohibited. This regime is applicable for electronic communications to all recipients
in the Union, irrespective of the origin of the communication.