WRITTEN QUESTION P-0380/03 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Environmental contribution for waste disposal of vehicles in contravention of EU legislation.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, application of EU law, consumer, environmental tax, metal waste, motor car, motor vehicle industry, waste recycling

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/53

(2003/C 280 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0380/03

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental contribution for waste disposal of vehicles in contravention of EU legislation

Since 21 April 2002 Member States of the European Union have been required to comply with the
provisions of the EU directive on end-of-life vehicles (2000/53/EC (1)). Under Article 5(4) of the directive,
vehicle producers are required to ‘meet all, or … part of, the costs’ of recycling.

However, the situation in the Netherlands involves all purchasers of new vehicles having to pay a fixed
environmental contribution for waste disposal of EUR 45 per vehicle, which goes into a fund used to
finance the uneconomic element of the recycling of all end-of-life vehicles in the Netherlands.

It therefore very much looks as if consumers are footing 100 % of the costs of recycling. The EU principle
(cid:1) as enshrined in the above law (cid:1) is clearly being violated by the Netherlands.

Does the Commission agree?

If so, is the Commission prepared to make it clear to the Netherlands government that the system under
which consumers pay an environmental contribution for waste disposal must be overhauled, and that
vehicle producers and importers of vehicles into the Netherlands market should ‘meet all, or a significant
part of, the costs’ of recycling?

If not, could the Commission state what contribution is made by vehicle producers to the Netherlands
system and how this compares with the contribution of EUR 45 from Netherlands consumers?

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(12 March 2003)

Article 5, paragraph 4 of Directive 2000/53/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 18 September
2000 on end-of life vehicles (1) provides that Member States should take the necessary measures to ensure
that producers meet all, or a significant part of the cost related to the take-back of end-of life vehicles by
an authorised treatment facility. The Dutch legislator has implemented this ‘free take-back principle’ in
Article 8(b) and (c) of the ‘Decision management carwrecks’ of 24 May 2002 (2). According to this Article,
every producer or importer of vehicles into the Netherlands becomes responsible, both from an
organisational point of view and financially, for the return and treatment of vehicles put on the Dutch
market which have become waste.

Since 1995, there exists a voluntary scheme for the disposal of car wrecks, established by the Automobile
Recycling Netherlands (ARN) in the Netherlands. Every time a car is registered in the Netherlands a
disposal charge of EUR 45 has to be paid to a fund. To ensure that all car manufacturers and importers
pay this charge, the Dutch government has declared the agreement generally binding on all manufacturers
and importers in the market. The Dutch system does not contain any rules on passing on the disposal
charge. However, each individual producer or importer is of course free to make the commercial decision
whether or not to pass on those costs further down the distribution chain and ultimately to the consumer.

It should be noted that the fund is used for the financing of the total take-back and recycling costs, which
amount to approximately EUR 100 per end-of live vehicle. The producer and importers are responsible for
financing the revenues of this fund.

In line with the producer responsibility principle, the Dutch system thus encourages producers to take
preventive measures to make vehicles more easy to reuse, dismantle and recycle (‘design for recycling’) and
specifies their responsibility for the collection, treatment, reuse and recovery (including recycling) of end-of
life vehicles.

C 280 E/54

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

In 2001, the Commission has assessed the system of disposal charges on its conformity with the state aid
rules. The Commission concluded that this system did not contain any element of state aid (3). Since in
only 7 % of the cases the costs were passed on to the end consumers, the Commission also concluded,
within the framework of the state aid assessment, that car producers and importers pay for at least a
significant part of the costs in conformity with Article 5, paragraph 4 of Directive 2000/53/EC.

(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000.
(2) See: ‘Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden’ 2002 259.
(3) Commission Decision 2002/204/EC of 30 October 2001 on the waste disposal system for car wrecks implemented

by the Netherlands (cid:1) OJ L 68, 12.3.2002.

(2003/C 280 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0406/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Urgent measures to protect the SPA ‘Valloni e Steppe pedegarganiche’ in Apulia, Italy

The SPA ‘Valloni e Steppe pedegarganiche’ (Code No IT9110008) in Apulia, Italy, is under serious threat
from a series of measures, in particular reindustrialisation projects (cid:1) factories, a gasification plant, the
‘Magic Land’ shopping centre, hotels, roads, carparks, etc., a large proportion of which are covered by the
Manfredonia Regional Pact. Other serious environmental effects are caused by the conversion of
agricultural land, in particular dry grazing land turned into prickly pear plantations. All these projects are
concentrated in an SPA (Special Protection Area) in blatant contravention of the ‘Habitats’ Directive 92/43/
EEC (1) and the ‘Wild Birds’ Directive 79/409/EEC (2).

The area is of particular importance in preserving biodiversity (cid:1) it is home to the largest colony of bats in
Apulia and the last remaining population of little bustard in mainland Italy. The area has been classified as
an IBA (important bird area).

Failure to implement the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC is seriously threatening the survival of three
habitats of Community importance, one of which is a priority habitat, and species included in Annex II to
the Habitats Directive: 8 species of mammal; 2 species of reptile (including one priority species); one
species of amphibian (a priority species); one species of fish (a priority species); one species of invertebrate
(a priority species); one plant species (a priority species). 30 bird species (including 3 priority species)
covered in Annex I to the Birds Directive are also under serious threat.

After repeated attempts to make the local and national authorities aware of the problem the LIPU (Italian
League for Bird Protection) lodged an official complaint with the Commission (No 2001/4156SG (2001)
A/2150). Following this complaint the Ministry for the Environment and Conservation called a meeting of
a technical panel involving all the parties concerned. The panel has not met since June 2001. Subsequently
the local authority of Manfredonia commissioned an environmental impact assessment (after the event,
since a lot of projects had already been carried out). The assessment has not been made available to
environmental organisations and was never submitted to the panel.
In the meantime the Italian
Government has granted further funding to the Regional Pact, none of which was used for compensatory
measures. All of it was used for further building work.

The area in question has also benefited from EU funding under the LIFE programme in the context of the
project ‘urgent measures for the protection of Natura 2000 sites in the Gargano National Park (cid:1) LIFE
Natura No 4 3200/98/491’ the purpose of which was the conservation of the ‘steppes’, the same
environment that is being destroyed by the Regional Pact. The Region of Apulia benefits from EU
structural funding under Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (3) (Regional Operational Programme 2000-2006).

What steps has the Commission taken to put an end to the infringements of the Community directives
mentioned above and the destruction of the site in question?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.