WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)and Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission. German mandatory deposit system.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, beverage industry, deposit on a polluting product, packaging product, restriction on competition, trade restriction, waste recycling

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/267

(cid:1) does it know how many infringements were ascertained by the Media Safeguards Authority in the

years from 1999 to 2002 and in how many cases penalties were imposed as a result;

(cid:1) does it believe that the Media Safeguards Authority has employed human and financial resources on

the scale required to enable it effectively to perform the tasks assigned to it by law?

(1) OJ L 298, 7.10.1989, p. 23.
(2) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(1 September 2003)

The infringement procedure the Honourable Member refers to was based on a monitoring conducted by
the Commission in 1999. The results of
the monitoring raised serious doubts whether the Italian
authorities were sufficiently supervising the application of legislation implementing Chapter IV of the
the monitoring period
Television without
coincided with the transitional stage when the powers were transferred from the broadcasting and
publishing standards board and the Ministry of Communications to the newly established authority and
that the situation had considerably improved since then.

frontiers Directive (1). The Italian authorities argued that

The Commission asked for additional information concerning the improvement made in monitoring of the
rules on advertising and the reply of the Italian authorities of 21 May 2003 provided satisfactory answers
to its questions. Staff allocated to this task had increased from 2000 to 2002 of about 30 % (4,5 to 6 full
time). Financial resources have been doubled in the same period (EUR 61 000 to EUR 122 000). As far as
the number of proceedings is concerned the Italian authorities reported that 198 proceedings against
broadcasters were initiated in 1999 and 497 in 2000. According to information available a recent High
Court ruling has simplified the current procedure and therefore makes it easier for the Media Safeguards
Authority to impose effective sanctions.

With a view to the essentially enhanced situation concerning the application of
the Directive the
Commission on 9 July 2003, decided to terminate this case. This does not exclude that the Commission
might start or continue with infringement procedures that concern specific, advertising practices in Italy.

(1) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law,
Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities,
as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 30 June 1997.

(2004/C 33 E/278)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2519/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE)
and Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: German mandatory deposit system

The introduction in Germany of a mandatory deposit system on one-way containers for soft drinks, beer
and water on 1 January 2003 has led to severe indirect discrimination against importing companies. As a
result of this mandatory deposit system on cans and one-way plastic and glass bottles, the German retailers
have removed these containers from their shops because the collection of these recipients is complicated,
unhygienic and costly.

As a consequence imports of soft drinks, waters and beer have stopped almost completely. Foreign
companies can only deliver their products on the German market in one-way packaging because of the
transport distance and the structure of their companies. German companies are still maintaining or even
increasing their market share because they can deliver in refillable packaging, which does not suffer from
the new mandatory deposit rules.

C 33 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

In reply to questions asked on this issue by Ria Oomen-Ruijten during the 1 July plenary debate on
‘Packaging and packaging waste’, Commissioner Wallström stated: ‘Mr Bolkestein and myself have made
clear that we are not satisfied with the current situation in Germany, and we have urged the German
Government to set up a return system in conformity with Community legislation, which can also be a
nation-wide, one-way deposit. We are taking action and we will continue to do so.’

1.
Can the Commission indicate, in accordance with Commissioner Wallström’s statement, what steps it
is taking to ensure that the German Government will take the necessary measures to set up a return
system in conformity with Community legislation?

2.

Can the Commission indicate the time frame in which it will take the above-mentioned steps?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 August 2003)

The background to this case was explained in the reply given by the Commission on 3 July 2003 to
Written Question 1549/03 (1).

With regard to the present additional questions, the Commission can inform the Honourable Members as
follows. By letter dated 15 May 2003, the Member of the Commission responsible for 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 (2). 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.

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 C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 192.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 33 E/279)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2529/03

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Body piercing

Does the Commission consider it necessary to make proposals for minimum common standards for
licensing and operation for the commercial provision of the services of tattooing or body piercing in the
EU in order to protect the health of the general public and to avoid needless tragedies like the recent death
of Daniel Hindle in Sheffield in the UK? If not, why not?