WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/03 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission. Swedish rules contrary to internal market.
Date: 2003-07-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, beverage industry, deposit on a polluting product, free movement of goods, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition, single market, waste recycling

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/173

(2004/C 65 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2545/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Subject: Swedish rules contrary to internal market

There are two bodies of law in Sweden governing recycling schemes. The first set of rules requires
producers to recycle their packaging in one way or another. Producers usually join together to form
recycling businesses. Drinks ready for consumption are subject to other rules which require producers to
take their packaging back. The industry develops a deposit scheme to achieve this. The producers
themselves have to pay a charge per bottle for handling.

The problem is that the two schemes are mutually contradictory. Producers or importers of ready-made
drinks cannot join the cheaper scheme (1). They must use the second set of rules which entails re-marking
all bottles because the Swedish system is based on bar codes.

Owing to this system, importers face high costs as they are charged some 77 öre per bottle as a handling
fee for the deposit scheme, which benefits the big breweries. It could be concluded that the Swedish
deposit scheme in fact constitutes a barrier to trade.

Are these rules not contrary to internal market rules?

The Swedish Environment Ministry has now put a draft law before the Swedish Parliament providing for
penalties for shop-owners who sell bottles outside the deposit scheme, which means that the Environment
Ministry could possibly put an end to parallel imports of soft drinks although they keep prices down on
the Swedish market. Does the Swedish Parliament have the powers to prohibit the conveyance and
marketing of packaging which does not form part of a return scheme? This could spell the end for parallel
imports of soft drinks.

Finally, I would emphasise that I support recycling and return schemes but they must be fair for all and
must not distort competition.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2003)

Article 7 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and
packaging waste (1) (‘Packaging Directive’) obliges Member States to take the necessary measures to ensure
that systems are set up for ‘(a) the return and/or collection of used packaging […]’ and ‘(b) the reuse or
recovery including recycling of the packaging and/or packaging waste collected’. The Commission cannot
see a reason why the principle of setting up separate systems for the recovery and recycling for different
kinds of packaging waste should contravene the Packaging Directive or the Internal Market rules to which
It also seems unclear which elements of these two systems would be mutually
the Directive refers.
contradictory. Article 7 of the Packaging Directive does not exclude mandatory deposit systems to ensure
the return of used packaging provided that these are in conformity with relevant Community legislation.

However, the same article also provides that ‘these systems shall be open to the participation of the
economic operators of the sectors concerned and to the participation of the competent public authorities.
They shall also apply to imported products under non-discriminatory conditions, including the detailed
arrangements and any tariffs imposed for access to the systems, and shall be designed so as to avoid
barriers to trade or distortions of competition in conformity with the Treaty’.

Therefore, whether or not the Swedish rules are contrary to internal market rules, more particularly the
principle of the free movement of goods laid down in Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty, depends on
whether these systems are open to imported products under non-discriminatory conditions in law and in
fact. The system could be considered a trade barrier prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty if Swedish

C 65 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

the rules or their
producers paid lower handling fees than importers or if any other aspect of
implementation had a discriminatory effect in the sense of Article 28 of the EC Treaty. Even if the
measure contravened Article 28 of the EC Treaty, it could, under certain conditions, be justified by the
Swedish authorities under Article 30 of the EC Treaty or the mandatory requirements identified by the
European Court of Justice. The information provided in the written question does not allow a full legal
analysis of the national measure in the light of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty. Therefore, the
Commission will investigate this matter. The Honourable Member is invited to provide any additional
evidence in his possession.

As regards the Swedish proposal that would provide penalties for shop-owners that sell bottles outside the
deposit scheme, the Commission would need further information in order to evaluate it under Community
law. Criminal penalties discriminating against imported goods are normally considered to be contrary to
Article 28 of the EC Treaty. It is also noticeable that before its final adoption, the Swedish authorities are
under the obligation of notifying any such measure under Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations (2) as amended.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2004/C 65 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2549/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 August 2003)

Subject: Differentiated toll (cid:1) eco-sensitive areas

There is an urgent need to designate eco-sensitive areas in Europe taking account of features related to the
countryside, agriculture, ecology, archaeology, art history and the economy, whilst preserving a free
market and bearing in mind the transport regulations put forward in the White Paper of 12 September
2001 (1).

An increased road-use charge should be introduced in these eco-sensitive areas of EUR 1 per kilometre
travelled for each lorry of 3,5 t and over. The revenue should be used specifically to promote alternative
forms of transport (rail, etc.), and for environmental protection and nature conservation in the area
concerned.

At present, Italy charges around 10 cent per kilometre travelled for each lorry of 3,5 t and over.

Germany is to charge around 15 cent per kilometre travelled for each lorry of 12 t and over from 2004
onwards.

Austria is to charge around 12 cent per kilometre travelled for each lorry of 3,5 t and over from 2004
onwards.

A special tariff of EUR 2,4 per lorry and kilometre travelled (known as the Brenner toll) is charged in
Austria on the section between Innsbruck and the Brenner (a distance of 34,5 km) for lorries with more
than three axles.

Can the Commission give a specific statement of its position on this proposal?

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.