WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE),Johannes Blokland (EDD), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC).
Date: 2003-07-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: dangerous substance, electrical equipment, electronic equipment, interpretation of the law, waste management, waste recycling

C 78 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

other hand, that the milk quota is totally inadequate to allow aspirations of non-Malthusian development?
the measures taken as regards rural development affect Galician society? The Galician
How will
Government has stated that,
in milk prices, Galicia will receive a sum of
EUR 530 million in direct aid for the milk sector between now and 2014: what will be the significance of
these funds, and where will they come from?

in order to offset the fall

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

long-term
The Commission considers that the latest CAP Reform offers to European farmers a clear,
planning framework for their business decisions, which allows them the flexibility to respond to future
market demands, while at the same time contributing substantially to the stability of their incomes. The
Commission believes that the reform will enhance quality, will make prices more a reflection of market
demand and will allow the CAP to respond better to societal concerns regarding the environment and
animal welfare. This will increase the support of consumers and taxpayers for the CAP, thus improving the
image of farmers in European society.

Regarding the reform of the milk sector, the Honourable Member will recall that Commission’s proposal to
increase quotas by 1 % in each of the years 2007 and 2008 was turned down and that the Council decided
to postpone, by one year to 2006, the 1,5 % increases already foreseen in the Agenda 2000 reform of
0,5 % in each of the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. However, the additional cuts agreed in the intervention
price for butter have been compensated with higher levels of dairy premiums and additional payments to
producers, now up to EUR 35,5 per tonne, which will be incorporated in the single payment scheme from
2007. These dairy premiums, which will be granted to dairy producers, are calculated from the payment
rate multiplied by the individual reference quantity for milk available on the holding on 31 March of the
calendar year concerned.

As for rural development, the CAP Reform package includes a number of new or reinforced measures that
could be useful for Galician agriculture, during the transition to the new economic conditions expected.
These measures include support for participation in food quality schemes and temporary support for
compliance with new statutory standards and entry into the voluntary farm advisory system. In addition,
support measures for young farmers will be reinforced and Community support for agri-environment
measures strengthened. Extra funding for rural development will be made available as from 2006 by
means of the compulsory modulation mechanism.

(2004/C 78 E/0107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2356/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE), Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE),
Johannes Blokland (EDD), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)
and Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 July 2003)

Subject: Interpretation of the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC)

The answer to the Written Question E-0789/03 (1) given by Mrs. Wallström on behalf of the Commission
‘Article 2(3) does not provide for their use in new electrical and electronic
on 8 May 2003 reads:
equipment put on the market from 1 July 2006’. Here ‘their use’ refers to spare parts. However the
question did not concern re-use as spare parts for electrical and electronic equipment placed on the market
before 1 July 2006. It related to the re-use in new equipment of components that contain substances
restricted by the RoHS Directive (2002/95/EC (2)), but originate from used electrical and electronic
equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/107

In Article 3(d) of the WEEE Directive (2002/96/EC (3) ‘re-use’ is defined as: ‘any operation by which WEEE
or components thereof are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived,
including the
continued use of the equipment or components thereof’. Application of this definition will allow the
continued use of recovered components in any equipment regardless whether it is already in existence or
new. Thus premature disposal of used components that are perfectly suitable for reuse will be avoided in
line with the environmental objectives of the WEEE Directive.

If Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive is interpreted narrowly as not allowing the re-use described above, this
is in direct conflict with Article 4, Product design, of the WEEE Directive. Article 4 provides that ‘Member
States shall encourage the design and production of electrical and electronic equipment which take into
account and facilitate dismantling and recovery,
in particular the re-use and recycling of WEEE, their
components and materials’. Thus, early disposal and destruction of components taken from used electrical
and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006, that contain substances restricted by the
RoHS Directive, but are otherwise well suited for re-use, is in conflict with the purpose of Article 4 of the
WEEE Directive.

Does the Commission share the view that it is permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment put
on the market for the first time after 1 July 2006 to contain components that are re-used from electrical
and electronic equipment put on the market before that date, even when these components contain the
substances restricted by the RoHS Directive?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 118.
(2) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003, p. 24.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

In the view of the Commission, one of the main objectives of the Directive 2000/95/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in
electrical and electronic equipment (1), the so-called RoHS Directive, is that new electrical and electronic
equipment, i.e. put on the market for the first time from 1 July 2006, does not contain lead, cadmium,
mercury, hexavalent chromium, Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or Polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDE). For this reason, an explicit prohibition with this meaning is stipulated in Article 4(1) of the RoHS
Directive. There are two sets of derogations to this hazardous substance restriction under the RoHS
Directive. Firstly, it does not apply to the applications listed in an Annex to the RoHS Directive (2). In
addition, Article 2(3) provides that ‘This Directive does not apply to spare parts for the repair, or to the
reuse, of electrical and electronic equipment put on the market before 1 July 2006’. This aims to allow old
equipment to be maintained with spare parts and to ensure that old electrical and electronic equipment is
reused. This derogation is explicitly limited to old equipment, i.e. put on the market before 1 July 2006.
Under the Directive, it is therefore allowed to market spare parts containing the hazardous substances for
the repair of old equipment as well as to market old equipment for the purpose of reuse.

However, in reply to the question of the Honourable Members, the Commission does not consider it to be
permissible for new electrical and electronic equipment to contain components re-used from electrical and
electronic equipment, when these components contain the substances restricted by the RoHS Directive.

Firstly, this would in the Commission’s view contradict the above-mentioned main objective of the
Directive and also conflict with the express wording of Article 2(3) of the Directive. To take any other
approach would run the risk of permitting retrofitting of new equipment with components containing
hazardous substances. This would prolong the existence of hazardous substances in the waste stream and
limit increased recycling efforts. It would of course also make the enforcement of the RoHS Directive as
well as the Directive 2002/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste
electrical and electronic equipment, the so-called WEEE-Directive (1) difficult.

C 78 E/108

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Furthermore, retrofitting of new equipment with components containing the substances restricted by the
RoHS Directive was subject to consideration during the conciliation process but was rejected.

In the Commission’s view, the above-mentioned interpretation of Article 2(3) of the RoHS Directive does
the WEEE Directive. The RoHS Directive is concerned about restricting
not contradict Article 4 of
hazardous substances in new equipment and the WEEE Directive about avoiding a threat to human health
and the environment caused by waste electrical and electronic equipment. The presence of these hazardous
substances in new electrical and electronic equipment would be mutually exclusive to the objectives listed
in Article 4 of the WEEE Directive, namely to encourage recycling and dismantling, for the reasons given
above.

(1) OJ L 37, 13.2.2003.
(2) Article 4(2), 5 and Annex.

(2004/C 78 E/0108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2380/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 July 2003)

Subject: New business formation

Will the Commission estimate the proportion of the working population engaged in new enterprises (cid:1)
however defined (cid:1) in each Member State, the EU as a whole, and the United States?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

At present, no regular data collection on new enterprises or the number of persons employed in new
enterprises is carried out at European level. Therefore Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat have
launched a harmonised data collection on ‘Business Demography’ amongst Member States. A table with
first results for reference year 2000 comprising ten Member States is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

In the ten Member States for which data is available new enterprises in the market economy created
roughly 1,5 million jobs, equivalent to about 2,8 % of the total number of persons employed in the market
economy in these Member States. In most Member States, especially new enterprises in Construction and
Business Services created a relatively large number of new jobs (cid:1) 4,7 % respectively 4,5 % of the total
number of persons employed in the sector. It should be noted that employment data from Denmark, the
Netherlands and Finland are provided in full-time equivalents (number of persons working less than the
standard working time of a full-year full-time employee are converted into full time equivalents). This
should be taken into consideration when comparing data for the different countries and using the totals of
the ten Member States.

Directorate General Enterprise and Eurostat intend to continue this harmonised data collection among the
Member States on the creation of new enterprises (cid:1) with the scope of enlarging the data collection to all
Member States (cid:1) and, among other indicators, their impact on employment. Data on the proportion of
the working population engaged in new enterprises are included in the design of the data collection. The
results are planned to be included in the Structural Indicators from the 2004 Spring Report.

For the United States of America and Japan no data on the number of persons employed in new
enterprises is available.