WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/03 by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, deposit on a polluting product, environmental impact, waste management

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/831

Norway is not willing to consider an increase in fishing days but has indicated that they could consider an
increase in the number of vessels allowed in the area at the same time. However, they link such an
increase in the number of vessels with, for them, a satisfactory solution to a number of other outstanding
issues, including improved conditions for Norwegian export of shrimp to the Union.

The Commission has agreed with Norway to have a high level meeting again in principal in June 2004 to
continue the dialogue and to find among other issues a satisfactory solution to the access problems for
Community vessels fishing shrimp at Svalbard.

(2004/C 78 E/0884)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/03

by Karl-Heinz Florenz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Deposits on disposable drinks packaging in Germany from an environmental point of view

For around 10 years, disposable packaging has been collected in Germany ‘inter alia’ as lightweight
packaging under the Dual System. As a result of the introduction of a deposit on disposable drinks
packaging (‘Dosenpfand’) on 1 October 2003, an as yet undetermined quantity of disposable drinks
containers now carries a compulsory deposit. This packaging is collected at sales points and transported
separately for subsequent recycling.

How does the Commission view this procedure, in particular when comparing the previous collection and
recycling system with the present, separate collection and recycling system from an environmental point of
view?

Does the Commission intend to carry out a comparative environmental assessment, or will Germany be
asked to submit a comparative environmental assessment?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Take-back systems for packaging waste have to fulfil the criteria of Article 7 of the packaging and
packaging waste Directive 94/62/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 1994 (1). This
includes, in particular, the non-discriminatory access of economic operators, including importers, to such
systems. There is, however, no requirement to set up such systems in a particular way (dual systems,
deposit systems, etc.). This article only briefly refers to environmental aspects and states that requirements
regarding the protection of environmental and consumer health need to be taken into account, without
specifying in what way this must be done.

The Commission is not aware of comparative studies between dual systems and systems based on one-way
deposits. Available information, therefore, is of a qualitative nature only. One-way deposits will normally
have higher logistical requirements. These higher logistical requirements may also be associated to specific
environmental impacts. However, systems based on one-way deposits will also achieve higher return rates
and may reduce littering. Furthermore, the quality of the collected material may be better because of a
lower content of impurities than in material collected by dual systems.

The Commission has no intention of carrying out a comparative environmental assessment or requiring
Germany to carry out such an assessment because it will be difficult to obtain unambiguous results and
there is no requirement to choose the best system from an environmental point of view. Therefore, an
assessment of the environmental performance of various take-back systems would be unlikely to produce
results that would influence the assessment of the conformity of the German one-way deposits with
Community legislation. The open infringement procedure against Germany exclusively concerns the
Internal Market aspects of this article.

However, the Commission has put to debate options on how to develop producer responsibility systems
within the Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling. Furthermore, the Commission has
launched a study on the implementation of Directive 94/62/EC and options to strengthen prevention and

C 78 E/832

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

re-use of packaging. While this study will not concern the comparison between various take-back systems
for one-way packaging directly, it may address effects by such systems of encouraging re-usable packaging.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.

(2004/C 78 E/0885)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3593/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Cost of passports across the European Union Member States

(5 December 2003)

The cost of an adult passport in the United Kingdom has increased greatly since 1997, and today costs
over GBP 40 to purchase.

Can the Commission detail the cost of an adult passport in the 14 other Member States, given that a
passport serves as both a national and an EU document?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Fixing the cost of passports is a competence which belongs to Member States.

The cost of obtaining a passport within each Member State may vary according to several factors, notably
the duration of its validity.

A comparative analysis shows that the cost of the British passport is very close to the average of the other
Member States, which is around EUR 50.

The Commission will provide the Honourable Member and the Parliament’s Secretariat with a table
detailing the cost of passports in all Member States.

(2004/C 78 E/0886)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3600/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Overflying Brussels (cid:1) extension of Zaventem airport

The new Belgian Minister of Transport Bert Anciaux is about to launch a plan to move a number of flight
paths from the area near ‘Zaventem National’ airport to the city of Brussels, following a decision taken in
June 2003 by an administrative court (Cour d’Arbitrage) calling for flights to be spread over several routes,
in response to complaints from 47 people living in the vicinity of the airport.

According to articles published in the Belgian press this decision was taken in the name of a principle of
‘solidarity’ according to which the noise pollution should be spread among all the inhabitants of Brussels.

Can the Commission say whether the initiatives taken by the Minister and the decision of the ‘Cour

1.
d’Arbitrage’ are in line with the Community directives on the subject?

Is it normal that the new flight plan for Brussels airport should be implemented without assessing the

2.
impact of the noise it would generate?

Can the Commission say whether

3.
environmental standards?

the extension of Zaventem airport meets all

the current