WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/04 by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission. Eliminating the distinction between packaging/packaging waste and goods/goods waste.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, interpretation of the law, packaging product, waste management, waste recycling

C 84 E/648

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0729)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0650/04

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Eliminating the distinction between ‘packaging/packaging waste’ and ‘goods/goods waste’

Knowing that:

(cid:1) In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to waste is laid down in a variety of

different texts;

(cid:1) In the Community legal system, environmental legislation relating to plastic waste is derived from

sources which distinguish between goods and packaging.

(cid:1) Directive 94/62/EC (1) on packaging and packaging waste illustrates the differential approach described
above. The difficulties associated with legislation in which a rigid distinction is made between goods
and packaging are familiar ones (not least on account of the recent revision of the above Directive)
and in the case of plastics such legislation should be simplified.

(cid:1) Containers designed for use in industry and agriculture as storage and protection for goods and
merchandise serve their purpose and are repeatedly re-used within a single company’s production
cycle. They are not normally used during the marketing stage and are not therefore transferred from
one producer to another or from a producer to a trader. At the end of their life the containers usually
have a residual value, for which reason the producer himself takes them back from the user in order
to have them refurbished or recycled, thereby launching a virtuous circle based on the containers’
inherent characteristics.

(cid:1) Plastic and paper bags and envelopes are often sold separately from the goods which they are intended
to contain and they are normally re-used for the same purpose, or used by the final consumer for
other purposes.

(cid:1) Familiar, too, are the difficulties which the Member States experience in enforcing, via their domestic

law, a distinction between goods and packaging which in legal terms is often a very fine one.

(cid:1) The fact that legislation relating in particular to goods or packaging waste management is scattered

across a number of legal texts has been (and continues to be) the cause of many disputes.

In view of the above, does the Commission not consider there to be a case for reviewing the approach
adopted in the drafting of legislation and abandoning the current practice of distinguishing between goods
and packaging? A different approach should be adopted to the environmental problem of waste, based on
the nature of the substance (plastic, etc.) involved and disregarding the distinction between goods and
packaging.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 April 2004)

The terms ‘packaging’ and ‘goods’ are not complementary as the term ‘goods’ covers packaging but also
has a wider connotation. For the purpose of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
1994 on Packaging and Packaging Waste (1), the terms ‘packaging’ and ‘packaging waste’ are necessary to
define the scope of the directive and to give legal certainty to economic operators as to whether their
products are covered by the obligations of the Directive. During the legislative process leading to the
the Council of
adoption of
11 February 2004 (2),
rules
distinguishing between packaging and non-packaging and have called upon the Commission to further
refine this distinction. The Commission is currently preparing the follow-up to this directive.

the Parliament and the Council have emphasised the need for clear

the revised Packaging Directive 2004/12/EC of

the Parliament and of

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/649

Moving to a material based approach for the promotion of recycling is one of the options put forward in
the communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (3). As the
question suggests, it could indeed promote greater coherence in the handling of certain waste.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.
(3) COM(2003) 301 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Position of the French language in the European institutions

According to press reports, the Commission is apparently earmarking some EUR 20 million in order to
make French ‘the’ official language in the institutions. The relevant decision was apparently taken after it
became clear that the vast majority of future officials from the ten new Member States had English as their
second language. Still according to press reports, the aim is, apparently, to teach French to 5 000 officials
by 2008. (The French Government itself is also making an effort to promote the French language in the
future Member States).

Is this information correct?

While nobody would deny the desirability of promoting a knowledge of languages other than the mother
tongue, primarily in the European institutions as well, it would seem that the learning of one specific
language (namely French) is being promoted as a reaction to the perceived dominance of another language.
Were similar measures set up in the past with the same view in mind? Which languages were then
involved?

Is not the Commission giving the impression that it is trying to regulate the relationship between
languages in the European Union for the benefit of one specific language and to the detriment of others?
Should not the Commission be adopting an impartial stance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission would refer
Mr Seppänen. (1)

(1) See page 358.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written E-0308/04 by

(2004/C 84 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea

According to document IP/04/159, the Commission believes that the Greek authorities’ requirement that
cabotage vessel crews on domestic routes must pass a Greek language proficiency test is illegal.