WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/03 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Common European packaging return scheme.
Date: 2003-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, deposit on a polluting product, free movement of goods, packaging, single market, technical barriers to trade, waste recycling

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/101

information on these taxes in the Member States. The following information can be found in the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) database on environmental taxes (2):

Denmark

Netherlands

Austria

Finland

Sweden

(euro/tonne)

50,3

13 - 78,8

5,8 - 101,6

15,1

31,1

United Kingdom

3,2 - 19,3

(1) COM(1999) 752final.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enveco/database_env_taxation.htm.

(2004/C 33 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Death of dolphins

The UK Fisheries Minister has proposed (20 March 2003) that it should be a legal requirement for some
UK fishing vessels to attach pingers or other acoustic warning devices to nets in a bid to keep dolphins
and porpoises from being caught.

Will the Commission now introduce similar measures with the requirement that they apply to all EU
vessels using fishing methods of concern in this respect?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers) has proven successful
in reducing by-catches of small
cetaceans in certain type of fisheries. The Commission is aware that such a measure has already been made
mandatory since 2000 by Danish authorities, and is at present under consideration by the United Kingdom
authorities within their consultation paper published on 20 March 2003.

As stated in the answer given to Question H-0122/2003 by Mrs McAvan (1), the mandatory use of acoustic
alarms in certain gillnet fisheries is part of a package of measures under preparation and for which the
Commission has already engaged a consultation with stakeholders. The Commission intends to finalise this
package as a proposal to the Council within the coming months.

(1) Written answer of 11.3.2003.

(2004/C 33 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1252/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Common European packaging return scheme

(3 April 2003)

European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC (1) refers to the need to harmonise national measures
concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order to prevent or reduce its impact on
the environment, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, and to ensure the functioning of
the internal market and to avoid obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition within the
Community.

C 33 E/102

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Since this directive was adopted, various packaging return schemes have been set up in some Member
States, including Denmark where Dansk Retursystem A/S uses a deposit system to ensure re-collection of
the packaging of beer and some soft drinks. In practice, however, this system, which was introduced to
protect the environment, has first and foremost closed the Danish market to imports of foreign beer.

Does the Commission therefore intend to submit a proposal for a common, uniform and harmonised
deposit system applicable to all Member States in order to prevent effectively technical obstacles to trade
and distortion and restriction of competition?

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

(2004/C 33 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1335/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Danish packaging tax

A large proportion of beer and carbonated drink bottles on the Danish market arrive in Denmark by way
of organised imports from Germany. Consumers and enterprising businesspeople collect hundreds of crates
in Germany and sell them from drinks machines in Danish shops, because the deposit is higher in
Denmark.

Thanks to these extensive ‘private’ imports, Danish breweries obtain bottles brought into Denmark without
the intervention of the tax authorities. The breweries thus avoid paying the packaging tax which they
would normally have to pay on empty bottles from Germany.

At the same time the breweries are refunded the packaging tax on the bottles they export.

The Danish Treasury estimates that this trade costs the Danish state some DKR 15 million per year, while
the canning industry reckons it is losing some DKR 50 million per year.

In the Commission’s view, does the Danish packaging tax constitute an indirect State aid to breweries and
the cross-border trade? If so, what does the Commission propose to do to stop it?

Could the Commission also state its opinion of the fact that Danish nationals are not required to pay a
deposit on cans purchased in Germany provided they sign a declaration that they are taking the cans with
them to Denmark?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1252/03 and P-1335/03
given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 May 2003)

The Commission is aware of the introduction of, or plans to introduce, deposit and return systems for
packaging in some Member States, such as Denmark, Germany and Sweden. It follows from Articles 5 and
15 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
waste (1) as well as recital 32 that Member States are allowed to encourage environmentally friendly reuse
systems and to adopt economic instruments, provided that the EC Treaty provisions are respected. If such
national systems constitute technical regulations in terms of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (2), the national draft legislation setting up such a system has to be
notified to the Commission (see also Article 16 of Directive 94/62/EC). The Commission therefore has the
opportunity to examine the national systems in question on their conformity with Community law prior