WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/03 by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission. Export of bottled drinks to Germany.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Germany, application of EU law, beverage industry, deposit on a polluting product, free movement of goods, packaging product, restriction on competition, waste recycling

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/253

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

In 1997 the Commission published a report on the legal situation concerning ‘Termination of employment
relationships’ in the Member States. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s secretariat a copy of this report.

In the European Social Policy Agenda approved by the Nice European Council’s meeting in December
2000, the Commission is requested to organise an exchange of views on individual dismissal by the year
2004.

In June 2003 the Commission launched a series of studies in order to ascertain the current position in the
Member States. Once these have been finalised it is planned to publish an updated report in 2004. The
Commission would then consider what future measures need to be taken.

(2004/C 33 E/261)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2330/03

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Export of bottled drinks to Germany

German wholesalers have informed French companies of their intention to delist their products as a result
of the German Government’s decision to implement the Order of January 2003 with effect from October
2003.

The German authorities have not in fact taken the logistical measures that this piece of legislation dictates,
leaving producers and distributors responsible for collecting any empty items of packaging and for
returning these to their place of origin.

This provision directly affects French drinks, and bottled natural and mineral water in particular, since as a
result of this legislation exporting companies will have to see to the return of empty bottles to France. In
practice, this creates a genuine distortion of competition. By acting in a manner that makes exportation all
but impossible, is Germany not showing protectionist concerns that run contrary to European law?

Does the Commission consider this German regulation to be compatible with European legislation on the
internal market on the one hand, and the Packaging Directive on the other?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

In its observations in Case C-309/02 the Commission expressed the view that a deposit on one-way
packaging is in principle admissible under Article 7 of Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging
waste 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 avoids
disproportionate barriers to intra-Union trade.

Having regard to this, by letter dated 15 May 2003 the Member of the Commission responsible for the
Internal Market, Mr Bolkestein, and the Member of the Commission responsible for the Environment, Mrs.
Wallström, expressed their views to the German Minister for the Environment, Mr Trittin, that the one-way
deposit system currently applied in Germany may constitute a serious breach both of Article 28 of the EC
Treaty and of Article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging
and packaging waste (1). Minister Trittin replied by letters dated 6 June, 7 July and 18 July 2003. In these
letters, the Minister indicates that the German Government is determined to set up a return system in
conformity with Community legislation by 1 October 2003 and that the remaining time until that date is
needed to resolve practical implementation problems.

C 33 E/254

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In his letter sent on 18 July to the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, the Chancellor, Mr Gerhard
Schröder, also gave his personal commitment that the German Government will not tolerate any further
transitional period going beyond the deadline of 1 October 2003.

In view of the above, on 23 July 2003, President Prodi replied to Chancellor Schröder. He expressed his
continued concerns on the current application of the German mandatory deposit system. In particular, in
view of the system’s effects on Union imports, on the one hand he asked the Chancellor to consider the
possibility of suspending the deposit regime in its current form, until a nation-wide return system covering
the entire German territory is operational. On the other hand, he indicated that the Commission will have
to initiate infringement procedures against Germany if, by 1 October 2003, no return system in
compliance with Community law is set up.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 33 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2339/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Relocation of the American Tool company away from Albergaria-a-Velha

The multinational company American Tool has a factory in Albergaria-a-Velha, where it produces saws of
various types and other cutting tools. On 27 June 2003 it notified its workforce that it intends to close
down its operations in Portugal with effect from September, to which end it has already launched the
process which will result in the collective dismissal of all 74 of its employees.

In a letter to those employees the company has cited ‘reasons relating to technology and to the current
economic situation’ as grounds for closing its factory in Albergaria-a-Velha and relocating part of its
production to Denmark.

American Tool’s announcement has come as a complete surprise, since the company and the group to
which it belongs were not known to be in financial difficulty. In addition to its factory in Denmark, the
group has several plants in other EU countries, in particular Spain and Italy.

Would the Commission say whether or not the company has received EU support and, if so, how much?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2004/C 33 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Construction workers’ social security fund run by the autonomous province of Bozen (Cassa Edile

Provincia Autonoma Bolzano); payments by foreign construction firms

The Austrian firm Strabag AG has complained that Austrian construction firms which post workers to the
autonomous province of Bozen, Italy, are required to make payments to the construction workers’ social
security fund run by that province even though the Austrian firms make essentially the same payments in
Austria, in accordance with the law on construction workers’ holidays and pay and the general law on
social security.