WRITTEN QUESTION E-2761/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Large increase in the transport of unsorted industrial waste from the Netherlands to Germany in order to cut costs of separation and processing.
Date: 2003-09-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, application of EU law, export of waste, industrial waste, waste management

C 65 E/210

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

At this stage it is far too early to come to any general conclusions as to whether the Regulation has
3.
strengthened the position of dealers and repairers. The Regulation represents a major change, and the
sector will clearly need time to adapt business practices to the freedoms offered by the new rules.

The Commission will continue to use its investigative powers and its regular contacts with operators
4.
in the sector to monitor the situation pursuant to Article 11 of the Regulation after the transition period
has expired on 1 October 2003. If and when abuses or practices that are out of line with the new rules are
brought to its attention, the Commission will take appropriate action, where necessary in association with
the parties concerned.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to underline that it has no plans to revoke Regulation
(EC) No 1400/2002, or indeed to disapply it, or withdraw the benefit of the exemption. The conditions for
such withdrawal or disapplication are set out
the Regulation, and in the
Commission’s view these are not met.

in Articles 6 and 7 of

The Commission would moreover draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that if Regulation
(EC) No 1400/2002 were revoked,
the general block exemption for vertical restraints, Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (3), would automatically apply to motor vehicle
distribution and repair. From a dealer or repairer’s point of view, that regulation contains fewer safeguards
than Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002. In particular, it does not provide for minimum notice provisions for
terminating dealer agreements, does not allow those dealers who so wish to sub-contract after-sales
provision, would allow manufacturers to effectively prevent dealers from selling brands from competing
suppliers, and does not provide for independent repairers to have access to the technical information they
need to effectively and safely repair today’s vehicles.

In the event that neither Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 nor Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 were to apply
to the motor vehicle sector, dealers, manufacturers and repairers would have far less legal certainty as
regards the compatibility of their agreements with the competition rules. The Commission therefore
believes that a block exemption represents the best option for this sector, and understands that this view is
shared by the majority of those concerned.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.
(2) OJ L 203, 1.8.2002.
(3) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.

(2004/C 65 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2761/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Large increase in the transport of unsorted industrial waste from the Netherlands to Germany in

order to cut costs of separation and processing

Is the Commission aware that, in the recent past, the Netherlands was leading the way with regard to

1.
the separation and recycling of industrial waste, thanks to purpose-built installations?

Is the Commission aware that increasing quantities of unsorted industrial waste are being sent by
2.
road from the Netherlands to the neighbouring state of North Rhine-Westphalia,
the quantity
concerned is likely to be 3,8 million tons in 2003 and that these consignments are causing a good deal of
noise and odour nuisance in Germany?

that

3.
Can the Commission confirm the reports on the current affairs TV programme Nova (shown on
Nederland 3 on 14 August and 3 September 2003) to the effect that this approach has been adopted
because dumping the waste in Germany is far cheaper than processing it in the Netherlands, the difference
in cost ranging from EUR 1 400 to 3 200 per consignment?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/211

Can the Commission also confirm that in half of all cases the actual composition of the waste differs
4.
from that stated in documents, both because consignments are swapped and because, for example, wood
shavings and plastic or building waste and textiles are unnecessarily delivered to the dump mixed together,
rendering it virtually impossible to recycle them properly?

5.
Is the Commission aware that, as a result of this state of affairs, the modern and environmentally
friendly processing of industrial waste in the Netherlands is liable to come to an end because the
installations built for the purpose are being put to less and less use and are losing EUR 300 million per
annum in turnover?

6. What can the Commission do to discourage the current abuse of the opportunities created by the EU
for free trade and tax-free cross-border transport within the EU in order to undermine Member States’
environmental policies and unnecessarily saddle future generations in a neighbouring country with a
legacy of unprocessable waste?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 October 2003)

The Commission is aware of the Netherlands’ policy in the field of separation and recycling of

1.
industrial waste.

2.
The Commission is also aware that shipments of waste from the Netherlands to Germany take place.
However, the Commission is not aware of the details of these shipments, e.g. the exact quantities, noise
and odour nuisance.

The Commission is not in a position to confirm or deny that dumping of waste in Germany is taking
3.
place nor that it happens because of existing cost differences.
If the waste is destined for disposal
operations and properly notified as required under the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) the
competent authorities have the power to object to the shipment as provided for by Article 4(3) of the
Regulation.

4.
The Commission is not aware of the details of the shipments, and is therefore not in a position either
to confirm or deny the information and allegations presented regarding the actual composition of the
waste, swapped notifications and mixing of waste during transport.

Enforcement of and inspection of compliance with Community legislation, including waste legislation is
the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission encourages co-operation between Member States
to ensure proper implementation of the Regulation.

The Commission does not possess information concerning the closure of treatment facilities in the

5.
Netherlands as a result of these shipments.

6.
As regards waste destined for recovery operations, the Commission recognises that the absence of
mandatory waste treatment standards at Union level could undermine the creation of a high level of
protection across the Community. This has also raised concerns about eco-dumping of waste within the
Community. In the Communication ‘Towards a Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of
Waste (2)’, which is subject to consultation until the end of November 2003, the Commission presents
potential options aiming at progressively establishing a common playing field for the recycling of waste.
These include the extension of the IPPC Directive (3) to the whole waste sector and the determination of
quality standards for recycling in Annex IIA of Directive 75/442/EC (4). Additionally, a limited number of
processes could require the setting in legislation of Union-wide emission limit values.

Furthermore,
in the context of the revision of the Waste Shipment Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, the
Commission is addressing the issues of standard-dumping by proposing that objections can be raised to

C 65 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

shipments destined for treatment in facilities covered by the IPPC Directive but which do not apply Best
Available Techniques as defined in Article 9(4) of that Directive (5).

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste

within, into and out the European Community, OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(2) COM(2003) 301 final.
(3) Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control,

OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(4) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(5) COM(2003) 379 final.

(2004/C 65 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2762/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Disclosure of the entire staff complement of the cabinets of members of the Commission and

changes therein in the past, present and future

1. Why does the IDEA directory,
‘Who’s who in the European Union’, which is also accessible by
Internet, only list the heads of cabinet and deputy heads of cabinet of members of the Commission and not
the rest of the cabinet staff?

2. Why is no clear information provided concerning the exact composition of the cabinets in the recent
past, particularly the last administrative period before the crisis of 1999? Only fragmentary and
contradictory particulars are to be found.

3. With what other posts is membership of a Commissioner’s cabinet compatible? Is it also compatible
with simultaneous service (cid:1) whether for a shorter or longer period (cid:1) on the staff of a European Union
institution?

4.

Is information about the financial interests of members of the cabinets public?

Is the composition of the cabinets or part thereof kept secret? If so, why? Or does the Commission
5.
consider the information to be available to the public upon request, with only those who specifically
inquire about the composition of the cabinets receiving it on a one-off basis, while it remains impossible
to keep track of changes in the cabinets’ staffing?

If the answer to question 5 is that the information is not publicly available or only to a limited
6.
extent, will the Commission remedy this situation? Would it be possible for the website to include a simple
link to an archive of the present and former members of the cabinet of each Commissioner or former
Commissioner (cid:1) an archive which would be simple to create (cid:1) or is there some other way in which the
Commission could achieve the same level of public information?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 November 2003)

The content of the IDEA guide is defined by the administrations of each Institution, body or agency of the
Union. The Commission limits the information provided to managerial level only and, when applied to
Cabinets, this consequently means that information in that publication is confined to Heads and Deputy
Heads of Cabinets.

For details of the rules applying to Cabinets and an overview of the composition of Commissioners’
cabinets, the Honourable Member is referred to two public web-sites as follows:

(cid:1) Code of Conduct for Commissioners is set out on:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/president/code_en.htm

(cid:1) The composition of Commissioners’ cabinets is available on:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/index_en.htm and, plainly, is not ‘kept secret’.