WRITTEN QUESTION P-3556/02 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Environmental agreements.
Date: 2002-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, environmental policy, national implementing measure, packaging, waste management, waste recycling

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/105

In this context, on 20 December 2002 the Commission forwarded to the European Parliament and to the
Council a proposal for a regulation2 aimed at prohibiting the transport of heavy fuel products in single-
hull tankers bound for or leaving the ports of the Union, to shorten the period adopted as part of the
Erika I package within which single-hull tankers must be withdrawn and to impose reinforced structural
inspections of single-hull tankers from fifteen years of age (the Condition Assessment Scheme or special
inspection regime).

(2003/C 161 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3556/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 2002)

Subject: Environmental agreements

The Commission recently published a communication on the subject of environmental agreements (1). The
Commission acknowledges the contribution of environmental agreements to the realisation of environ-
mental policy objectives.

The Netherlands has some experience of environmental agreements. A successful example is the Packaging
Agreement. As a result of this agreement, and with the help of a proactive stance by business, the
Netherlands is well on the way to fulfilling the objectives of the European packaging directive (94/62/
EC) (2) rapidly and in a cost-effective manner. Despite the proven success of the packaging agreement, the
Commission has decided to bring an action against the Netherlands in the Court of Justice for improper
implementation of the packaging directive.

Does the Commission consider it contradictory to be promoting the conclusion of voluntary agreements at
European level while putting obstacles in their way at national
level? If so, what action does the
Commission intend to take to eliminate this contradiction?

Does the Commission share my opinion that it must give priority in its task of ensuring that European
legislation is correctly implemented to cases in which the objectives of the legislation in question are not
being fulfilled?

(1) Commission Communication, Environmental Agreements at Community Level (cid:1) Within the Framework of the
Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory Environment (COM(2002) 412 fin. of 17 July
2002.

(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the environmental agreement on
packaging concluded between the Dutch authorities and the private sector that the Commission has on
record has expired.
In addition, the measures communicated by the Netherlands to the Commission
regarding the transposition of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on
packaging and packaging waste (1) do not provide for the formal setting up of collection, recycling and
recovery systems for this waste stream as required by its Article 7(1).

There is no contradiction between the fact that legal action is taken against the Netherlands and the
content of the recent Communication from the Commission on Environmental Agreements at Community
Level within the Framework of the Action Plan on the Simplification and Improvement of the Regulatory
Environment (2). The Communication sets out the criteria and modalities for the acknowledgement of such
agreements at Community level. It does not promote the use of this instrument as a means to fulfil legal
obligations, neither at Community nor at Member State level. Furthermore, Directive 94/62/EC was
adopted prior to the Communication and the latter does not modify or substitute the existing obligations
under this Directive. The Commission would like to point out, however, that it does not exclude that the
attainment of the objectives of Directive 94/62/EC may involve voluntary agreements.

C 161 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

As regards the implementation of Community legislation by the Member States, the Commission attaches
great importance to the attainment by the Member States of the objectives set by Community legislation.
However, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to case law of the Court of Justice
in this respect (3). The Court has ruled that a Directive must be implemented in the national legal order by
means of provisions which are capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and open
to permit individuals to be aware of and enforce their rights. The fact that a practice is consistent with the
protection afforded under a Directive does not justify failure to implement that Directive in such a way. In
order to secure full implementation of Directives in law and not only in fact, Member States must establish
a specific legal framework in the area in question.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) COM(2002) 412 final.
(3) See Case C-131/88 Commission v Germany [1991] ECR I-825, at paragraph 8 of the judgement.

(2003/C 161 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Setting up of a European Bank for Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation

For the decade following the collapse of the Communist bloc in Europe, the EU set as priorities the
implementation and follow-up of the process of economic and industrial transition in the countries of
Eastern Europe,
in response to their prompt application to join the EU and in preparation for their
accession. Under these circumstances and faced with the challenges presented by a changing Europe, the
EU established an ad hoc bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

The transition process has benefited greatly in each of the accession countries from EBRD guarantees,
funding and strategies. That the EU has now set a firm date for accession is testament to the advanced
stage of the process, and, therefore, leaves room for new and equally pressing priorities.

The challenges presented by natural disasters are at least as great as the previous challenge of transforming
the Communist economies in the eastern half of Europe. The effects of disruptions to ecosystems or in
terms of climate, weather or marine life, which are currently being vigorously felt on our continent, take a
huge financial toll. The scale of the cost of the present environmental crises and, above all, of those to
come has recently been estimated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at some
USD 150 billion a year.

Do these facts and figures, illustrating the challenges and dangers and therefore the funding and efforts
required, convince the Commission of the need for a Community policy aimed at taking measures
commensurate with the problems that arise and dealing with these environmental situations?

Should there not be one interlocutor and central actor to coordinate and manage rebuilding and the
limitation of these environmental disasters, such as the EBRD was in the case of industrial crises?

Would the Commission not simply be carrying out its responsibilities by setting up a European Bank for
Environmental Prevention and Rehabilitation, which would play a monitoring role and provide
information and education, with the task of aiding environmental transition today and in the future?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is convinced of the importance of the challenges presented by the recent natural
disasters. The relevance of this issue prompted the Commission, even before the tragic floods in the
to include the development of an integrated strategy to cope with natural and
summer of 2002,