WRITTEN QUESTION P-2364/02 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. New Italian legislation on waste.
Date: 2002-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU law - national law, Italy, application of EU law, case-law (EU), interpretation of the law, waste management

C 309 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2364/02

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: New Italian legislation on waste

Decree Law No 138 of 8 July 2002, which was adopted as law by the Italian parliament on 19 July,
provides an ‘authentic interpretation’ of the definition of waste appearing in Article 6, paragraph 1, of
Legislative Decree No 22/97 (‘Ronchi’ Decree), which transposed into Italian law amended Directive
75/442/EEC on waste.

The criteria used in the decree for interpreting the Community definition of waste run counter to the
Community directive as repeatedly interpreted by the Court of Justice and have the effect of significantly
restricting the scope of the directive in Italy.

What measures will the Commission take vis-à-vis the Italian Government, in its capacity as guardian of
the Treaties, to remedy this failure by Italy to meet its obligations under the EC Treaty?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC
of 18 March 1991 (2), 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 set out 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.

The Commission, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 18 of Directive
75/442/EEC as amended, has drawn up a list of wastes belonging to the categories listed in Annex I (3).

The Court of Justice has repeatedly provided guidance on the interpretation of the waste definition, and
has clarified, inter alia, that the definition of waste cannot be interpreted as excluding substances which are
capable of economic reutilisation (4); that the system of supervision and control established by Directive
75/442, as amended, is intended to cover all objects and substances discarded by their owners, even if they
have a commercial value and are collected on a commercial basis for recycling, reclamation or re-use (5);
that substances forming part of an industrial process may constitute waste within the meaning of
Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended (6); that the method of treatment or use of a substance does
not determine conclusively whether or not it is to be classified as waste. What subsequently happens to an
object or a substance does not affect its nature as waste, which, in accordance with Article 1(a) of the
Directive, is defined in terms of the holder discarding it or intending or being required to discard it; in
addition, the effectiveness of Article 174 of the EC Treaty and the Directive would be undermined if the
national legislature were to use modes of proof, such as statutory presumptions, which had the effect of
restricting the scope of the Directive and not covering materials, substances or products which correspond
to the definition of waste within the meaning of the Directive (7).

Lastly, on 18 April 2002 the Court stated that the term ‘discard’ must be interpreted in light of the aim of
is the protection of human health and the
Directive 75/442 which, according to its third recital,
environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, transport, treatment, storage and tipping of
waste, and the aim of Article 174(2) EC, which provides that Community policy on the environment is to
aim at a high level of protection and is to be based, in particular, on the precautionary principle and the
principle that preventive action should be taken. It follows that the concept of waste cannot be interpreted
restrictively (C-9/00).

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/229

the contents of Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste as amended, and of

the
In light of
interpretation of this provision provided by the Court of Justice, the Italian Decree No 138 of 8 July 2002,
which, according to the descritpion provided by the Honourable Member, provides criteria on the
interpretation of the terms ‘intention to discard’ and ‘obligation to discard’ and as a consequence is liable to
restrict the scope of application of Directive 75/442/EEC, could be in breach of the Community waste
legislation.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to verify the compliance with Community law in
this specific case. Should the Commission identify a breach of Community law in this specific case, it
would not hesitate, as the guardian of the Treaty, to take all necessary measures conferred on it by the
Treaty,
in order to ensure
compliance with the relevant Community law.

including infringement procedures under Article 226 of

the EC Treaty,

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 18.3.1991.
(3) Commission Decision 2000/532/EC, OJ L 226, 6.9.2000.
(4) Ruling of 28.3.1990, case C-359/88.
(5) Ruling of 25.6.1997, C-304/94.
(6) Ruling of 18.12.1997, C-129/96.
(7) Ruling of 15.6.2000, C-418/97.

(2002/C 309 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2395/02

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 July 2002)

Subject: Testing for illegally irradiated, unlabelled food products by Member States

A UK Food Standards Agency survey revealed in June 2002 that products sold in the UK are being
irradiated in breach of food regulations. Herbs, spices, dietary supplements, prawn and shrimps were
tested. None were labelled as irradiated, in breach of EU and UK law. 42 % (58 out of 138) of the dietary
supplements had been irradiated or contained an irradiated ingredient. Five prawn and shrimp samples and
one spice sample had also been irradiated. In the UK, only correctly labelled irradiated herbs and spices are
currently permitted.

Unregulated food irradiation is a potential health hazard, and breaches of irradiation labelling laws mislead
consumers. The sale of illegally irradiated, unlabelled foods has occurred repeatedly within the EU in recent
years, despite the fact that detection tests are now available. Such foods could still be on sale to consumers
in many EU Member States, especially in those States that conduct no irradiation detection surveys.

What action is the Commission planning to take following the alarming results of the FSA survey?

How does the Commission make sure that the demands of Directives 1999/2/EC (1) and 1999/3/EC (2) are
being fulfilled by the Member States?

Is the Commission able to give information on the number and results of irradiation detection surveys in
the Member States?

(1) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999, p. 24.