WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Exemptions from permit requirements of the 1975 Waste Directive.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, application of EU law, derogation from EU law, exchange of information, infringement procedure (EU), waste disposal, waste recycling

C 51 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

The recipients of Community aid for some market instruments such as export refunds, public storage or
other market disposal measures are normally companies or institutional units. Nonetheless, the purpose of
these measures is to balance the agricultural markets and to maintain a reasonable price level and therefore
to assure a fair income to farmers. Therefore, the farmers are of course the ultimate beneficiaries of these
support systems even if no direct aid payments are perceived by them.

Certain common market organisations such as for fruit and vegetables, bananas or tobacco are managed in
a way that payments are normally made to producer organisations. Some of these producer organisations
count for several hundred members and therefore the amounts involved are important. Nevertheless, the
producer organisations receive the payments in order to transmit them to the final beneficiaries. However,
these transactions latter are not contained in the CATS database.

The common market organisation for sugar provides support mechanisms that are not geared at farmers
directly. Such measures are export refunds, production refunds granted on the use of certain eligible
products by the chemical industry or marketing aids for sugar produced and refining aids for refining
certain raw sugars into white sugar. Here again the farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries of these support
systems even if they do not perceive direct aid payments.

Certain market instruments provide that the aid payments are made to the processors of the commodities
concerned, such as dried fodder or cotton. Clearly, the farmers are the ultimate beneficiaries of these
support systems even if they do not perceive direct aid payments.

The table excludes negative amounts caused by sanctions, recoveries and penalties.

The table does not include the payments made for rural development aid under the EAGGF Guarantee
section. The nature of these aid payments does not allow that the CATS database contains complete data
for all payments made to final beneficiaries under this regime.

As a final point it is underlined that, following the policy changes proposed by the Commission, the share
of the non direct aid schemes in relation to the direct aid schemes has substantially decreased and this
trend is continuing. Over the last ten years the support through other EAGGF Guarantee aid payments has
dropped from 91 % of our budget to some 35 % in 2001.

For Greece no sufficient data is available.

(1)
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999 establishing common rules for direct support schemes

under the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(3) The figures concern the financial year 2000.

(2004/C 51 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Exemptions from permit requirements of the 1975 Waste Directive

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-
2000 (1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under
Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports
submitted by Member States.

Article 11 of the 1975 Waste Directive 75/442/EEC (2) allows Member States to exempt establishments and
undertakings carrying out their own waste disposal at the place of production or recovery operations from
the permit requirements set out in Articles 9 and 10 of the Directive.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/167

On page 20 of its report published on 19 May, the Commission says that Ireland, Italy and the UK had
‘confirmed that they had adopted such rules without providing practical details’. In this instance, the
Commission concluded that:
‘Disappointingly, no reason or advantages have been provided by those
Member States who have done so. This remains a very underdeveloped area’.

What is the Commission’s view of the failure by Ireland, Italy and the UK to provide further information
about their decisions to allow these exemptions under Article 11? Do these failures constitute ‘significant
deficiencies’ in respect of which it is considering initiating legal procedures?

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2004/C 51 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1966/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Incineration of Irish clinical waste in the UK

(13 June 2003)

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-
2000 (1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under
Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports
submitted by Member States.

In relation to Article 7(2) of the 1975 Waste Directive 75/442/EEC (2), which deals with the issue of
collaboration on waste between Member States, the Commission states on page 13 that, in its previous
submission, the UK referred to collaboration between it and Ireland concerning the incineration of clinical
waste in the UK but that Ireland ‘did not supply any details’.

What is the Commission’s view of Ireland’s failure to supply details about the export to and incineration of
Irish clinical waste in the UK? Does this constitute one of the ‘significant deficiencies’ in respect of which it
is considering initiating legal procedures?

(1) COM(2003) 250 final.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.

(2004/C 51 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1967/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Irish Government’s waste prevention and waste recovery policies

On page 7 of its report on the implementation of Community waste legislation for the period 1998-
2000 (1) published on 19 May 2003, the Commission says that it is considering initiating procedures under
Article 226 of the Treaty against Member States where significant deficiencies remain in the reports
submitted by Member States.

Article 3(1) of the 1975 Waste Directive (Dir 75/442/EEC (2)), and the Community Waste Management
Strategy, commit Member States to taking measures to encourage waste prevention and waste recovery.

On page 15 of its report on the 1998-2000 period, the Commission states that Ireland did not report on
the state of its implementation of Article 3(1) and merely referred back to its report for the 1995-1997
period.