WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/03 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Flying ultralight aircraft.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air traffic, approximation of laws, civil aviation, free movement of persons, transport document

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/61

Within this framework, the Commission invites the Spanish Authorities to send appropriate technical
experts to the meeting. Invitations are also extended to the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (Brussels), WWF (Spain), and Foundation for a New Water Culture, Platform
for the Defence of the Ebro and the Region of Aragon.

All participants in the meeting will be expected to have an appropriate technical background and a
detailed knowledge of the Ebro river and its delta.

(2004/C 78 E/0061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1970/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Recycling charges for household goods

What is the Commission’s view of the charge that some, but not all, local authorities and private waste
management companies in Ireland impose on citizens for returning household goods (e.g. radios,
hairdryers, kettles, etc.) for recycling? Does the Commission believe that these charges are compatible with
the recycling aims of EU waste management policies and with the WEEE Directive, which has to be
implemented by August 2004? Would the Commission agree that such charges represent a disincentive to
citizens to return goods for recycling?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware that charging consumers at the point of return may have negative repercussions
on the collection results for waste electrical and electronic equipment (1). This is the reason for the free
take back obligation for household equipment in Article 5 (2a) of Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003, on waste electrical and electrical equipment (WEEE) (2). This
Article provides that ‘for WEEE from private households, Member States shall ensure that by 13 August
2005, systems are set up allowing final holders and distributors to return such waste at least free of
charge’.

However, until that date there is no Community legislation that would forbid charges on citizens for
returning household electrical and electronic equipment.

(1) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.
(2) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Flying ultralight aircraft

Pleasure and sports flights on board ultralight aircraft are apparently governed by specific regulations in all
EU Member States. Under the Italian regulations, pilots of such aircraft may be given the green light to fly
without being required to show their ‘flight plan’, unlike pilots of standard flights. At present most states
accept that such flights may even cross borders; however, the Italian authorities have recently stated that
they are not prepared to recognise a German ‘green light’ given to flights over Italian territory because the
relevant documents are not identical in the two countries.

C 78 E/62

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Even though the equivalence of such documents is a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Member
States, does the Commission not consider that the governments of the Member states should be asked to
harmonise their regulations on procedures and the documents required for authorisation to fly such
aircraft, in particular since such harmonisation would remove an obstacle to the exercise of a sporting
activity which is very popular among young people?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2003)

The Commission welcomes all efforts to remove obstacles to free movement in general and to the exercise
of a sporting activity in particular.

However, on the basis of the information given, the Commission cannot give a precise reply to the
question asked, namely how Community law could be involved in this case, because the rules to which the
Honourable Member refers do not seem to be based on discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Honourable Member is requested to bear in mind that the Community is not competent to deal with
the question of harmonisation between the Member States of regulations on the procedures and
documents required for authorisations to fly ultra-light aircraft.

The problems of harmonisation of such documents therefore lie solely within the competence of the
Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1986/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Atmospheric pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki

(16 June 2003)

According to Greek press reports at the beginning of June 2003, research was recently carried out on
behalf of the Commission into levels of harmful microparticles in the air in 19 European cities. These
publications show that Athens and Thessaloniki have the highest levels of tropospheric ozone or benzene,
namely up to 2,6 times the permitted levels laid down in Community environmental
legislation. In
particular, while the highest permitted levels of this specific pollutant in the EU are 48 µg/m3, in these two
cities they are as high as 125 µg/m3. Moreover, the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and
Public Works, the ministry responsible, admits that suspended particles really do pose a problem, especially
in view of the targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol for 2005.

Will the Commission say:

1. What are the basic conclusions of this specific research regarding this type of pollution in Athens and

Thessalonki?

2. What proportion of overall environmental pollution in Athens and Thessaloniki is accounted for by

this pollutant?

if

so, what measures has

3. Has the Commission so far made any recommendations to the Greek authorities to limit this pollutant
and,
If no
the Greek government
recommendations have been made to the Greek government, does the Commission consider that
competent Greek authorities could have taken preventive measures in respect of the pollutant in
question on their own initiative?

taken to implement

them?

4. What are the permissible levels for emissions of the pollutant in question in the Kyoto Protocol and

what stage has Greece reached in preparing to meet these obligations?