WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/03 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Illegal introduction of a deposit system in Germany.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, environmental protection, infringement procedure (EU), mineral water, non-alcoholic beverage, packaging, preliminary issue, trade restriction, waste management

C 11 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

By way of follow-up to the European Court of Justice ruling in December 2000 condemning France
3.
for failure to comply with the provisions of Article 7(4) of the Directive in relation to fixing of hunting
seasons, the Commission is in an ongoing dialogue with the French authorities on this matter. There has
been some progress in recent years. As regards, the hunting of the Black-tailed Godwit specifically, which
is a huntable species in France, the hunting season is conformity with the Directive. Within the framework
of the management plan being prepared for this species, there is recognition of the need for improved bag
statistics to determine the impact of hunting on the populations of the species. However, the main
concerns relate to the need for adequate site protection and management throughout the species range.

4.
The Commission is working with Member States and key stakeholder groups to promote sustainable
hunting under the Birds Directive within the framework of a sustainable hunting initiative (details of the
initiative are given on web site of DG Environment at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/
home.htm). This will provide the basis to assist reflections on any possible future modifications of the
hunting provisions of the Directive. The Commission does not presently have plans to amend the
Directive.

5.
In line with the principle of subsidiarity it is the Member States who are responsible for the practical
application of their hunting legislation in accordance with the biological principles of the Directive. The
Commission is committed to ensuring the full respect of the provisions of the Directive and has pursued
legal actions against Member States where necessary.
It is working closely with Member States and
stakeholder groups to define the nature and scale of different problems facing wild bird populations so that
conservation action is based on sound science.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 11 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1549/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Illegal introduction of a deposit system in Germany

On 1 January 2003 Germany introduced a deposit system on all non-reusable containers for beer,
carbonated soft drinks and waters although there is still no central collection system or central settlement
system. The absence of a system of this kind and thus the obligation and necessity in practice to switch to
refillable containers constitutes a barrier to trade under Community law, discriminates against importers
and is disproportionate. In addition to the absence of any central collection and settlement system, there
have also been complaints about the deposit system itself. In a number of cases the European Commission
has stated that a deposit system is a barrier to trade which can be justified only if the system is an
instrument proportionate to attaining the environmental objectives laid down in Directive 94/62/EC (1).

However, this is not the case here because:

(cid:1) the obligations arising from Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste have already been
fully satisfied in Germany through the green point system of Duales S1.010ystem Deutschland GmbH;

(cid:1) the deposit requirement is the result of failure to meet in the reusable quotas laid down in the German
packaging regulation and is therefore not aimed at collecting more non-reusable packaging but merely
forcing manufacturers and importers to purchase more refillable containers.

Particularly in view of the urgent nature and serious implications of the deposit regulations in Germany,
measures at European level are both desirable and necessary.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/193

Is the Commission aware of the situation which has arisen following the introduction of the deposit

1.
system in Germany on 1 January 2003?

2.
Does the Commission think that the introduction of the German deposit system is a proportionate
means of achieving the environmental objectives laid down by Directive 94/62/EC? Does the Commission
not rather consider this measure a disguised barrier to trade which should be exposed by bringing
infringement proceedings against Germany?

3.
Is the Commission prepared to bring its influence to bear to extend the current proceedings against
Germany on the question of the effects of the reusable quotas for importers of natural mineral water to
include soft drinks (whether produced with natural mineral water or not) and possibly other drinks, and to
speed up the proceedings as far as possible?

Is the Commission prepared to adopt a forceful position in the case referred by the German court in
4.
Stuttgart to the European Court for a preliminary ruling (Radlberger v. Spitz) and to expedite the
proceedings in this case as far as possible?

Does the Commission intend to take measures to rectify this undesirable and unjustifiable situation
if so, what measures? Is the Commission also prepared to discuss this issue at the forthcoming

5.
and,
Internal Market Council with a view to arriving at common approach?

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

1.

The Commission is aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

The legal

implications of

2. to 4.
introducing a deposit on one-way packaging for beverages that
replaces an existing return and collection system have been assessed, in part, by the Commission in the
context of preliminary reference C-309/02 (cid:1) Radlberger Getränke that is currently pending before the
Court of Justice. In that case, in the observations it submitted to the Court of Justice on 20 December
2002, the Commission took the view that such a measure is, in principle, admissible under Article 7 of
Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
packaging waste (1) and Article 28 of the EC Treaty, provided that the change from the existing return
systems to a system based on deposits on one-way packaging is implemented without disruptions and
disproportionate barriers to intra-Union trade.

The current court proceedings against Germany on the question of the effects of the reusable quotas for
importers of natural mineral water, C-463/01, have no direct bearing on the introduction of a mandatory
deposit on one-way packaging for certain beverages. Indeed, in that case, the Commission applied to the
Court of Justice for a finding that the re-use quota formerly operating under German law did not comply
with Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, in conjunction with Article 28 of the Treaty,
only as far as it applied to mineral waters which are to be filled at source pursuant to Council Directive
80/777/EEC of 15 July 1980 (2). The Commission considered that for those mineral waters that were to be
transported over long distances, typically imported ones, the effects on trade were of a disproportionate
character. The German measure was therefore considered by the Commission as a disguised restriction to
the free movement of goods. An extension of this Court application is not possible without going again
fully through all the steps of the infringement procedure envisaged under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission is limited in its ability to speed up these court proceedings, as at this stage these are
matters for which the Court of Justice is responsible.

the Commission has

received information raising doubts as

the current
Meanwhile,
implementation of the new mandatory deposit on one-way packaging for certain beverages in Germany
complies with the requirements developed in the written observations to C-309/02. In particular, it seems
that, as a rule, the deposit can presently only be reclaimed at the shop where the one-way packaging was
purchased. As a consequence, there has been a severe reduction in the sales of beverages contained in one-
way packaging.

to whether

C 11 E/194

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

However, the Commission is also aware that the German Government intends to install a collection system
allowing the return, by 1 October 2003, of the one-way packaging to any sales point in Germany.

5.
In order to ensure that this new collection system is introduced as quickly as possible and to avoid
future infringements relating to the deposit of one-way packaging, the Members of the Commission
responsible for Environment and Internal Market wrote to the German Minister for the Environment, Mr
Jürgen Trittin,
in May 2003. With reference to the Commission’s views, as expressed in the written
observations to C-309/02 described above, the Members of the Commission have voiced their concern
about the current transitional phase of the deposit scheme in place because a satisfactory, nation-wide
return system has not been set up. In this respect, they have requested additional information on the
current situation as well as further information on the proposed new return system and have urged the
German Government to speed up the introduction of measures to bring German law in line with
Community law. They have also asked the German Government whether it had envisaged suspending the
measure until a proper return system is in place.

In his answer to the letter, the German Minister for the Environment stresses the joint efforts made by
industry and the German government in order to set up a nation-wide return system by the target date of
1 October 2003. Mr Trittin considers that there is no need to suspend the measure until that date.

The Commission is currently in the process of evaluating Mr Trittin’s reply.

At the moment the Commission does not envisage to discuss this issue at the forthcoming Internal Market
Council.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) Council Directive 80/777/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation

and marketing of natural mineral waters, OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2004/C 11 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?

Will the Commission explain the following anomalous aspects of the new system?

Why is a particular service of the Commission penalised, in terms of loss of priority points, if the average
for its officials in a particular grade exceeds 14,5 points (out of 20)? Does this mean that each grade has a
uniform level of performance in all of the services of the Commission?

(2004/C 11 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?