natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To counter eco-competition, minimum environmental requirements need to be laid down in European legislation.
To counter eco-competition, minimum environmental requirements need to be laid down in European legislation.
History of the draft regulation
History of the draft regulation
On 1 July 2003, the Commission presented its proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste.
On 1 July 2003, the Commission presented its proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste.
The European Parliament gave its Opinion on 19 November 2003.
The European Parliament gave its Opinion on 19 November 2003.
On 10 March 2004, the Commission presented its amended proposal.
On 10 March 2004, the Commission presented its amended proposal.
On 24 June 2005, the Council adopted its common position.
On 24 June 2005, the Council adopted its common position.
The general objectives of the proposed Regulation are to:
The general objectives of the proposed Regulation are to:
- transpose into Community legislation the revised OECD Council Decision
- transpose into Community legislation the revised OECD Council Decision
OECD Decision C (2001) 107 Final of 21 May 2002 concerning the revision of Decision C(92) 39/FINAL on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. and the revised Basel Convention
OECD Decision C (2001) 107 Final of 21 May 2002 concerning the revision of Decision C(92) 39/FINAL on the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. and the revised Basel Convention
Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, amended on 6 November 1998. on the control of transboundary movements of waste;
Basel Convention of 22 March 1989 on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal, amended on 6 November 1998. on the control of transboundary movements of waste;
- address the difficulties encountered in applying, administering and enforcing the 1993 Council Regulation ("the 1993 Regulation")
- address the difficulties encountered in applying, administering and enforcing the 1993 Council Regulation ("the 1993 Regulation")
- pursue global harmonisation in the area of transboundary shipments of waste, and
- pursue global harmonisation in the area of transboundary shipments of waste, and
- reorganise and simplify the structure of the Articles of the 1993 Regulation.
- reorganise and simplify the structure of the Articles of the 1993 Regulation.
The main elements proposed include, inter alia, changes to the overall procedural framework (in particular regarding prior written notification and consent and information requirements), changes and clarifications regarding scope and definitions, provisions regarding shipments of waste between and within Member States, and provisions for exports and imports.
The main elements proposed include, inter alia, changes to the overall procedural framework (in particular regarding prior written notification and consent and information requirements), changes and clarifications regarding scope and definitions, provisions regarding shipments of waste between and within Member States, and provisions for exports and imports.
In the first reading, the European Parliament adopted 103 amendments.
In the first reading, the European Parliament adopted 103 amendments.
The main items were:
The main items were:
1 Single legal base: environment
1 Single legal base: environment
Inclusion of animal by-products in the regulation
Inclusion of animal by-products in the regulation
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for disposal, such as: self-sufficiency at national level, interim operations, mixed municipal waste
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for disposal, such as: self-sufficiency at national level, interim operations, mixed municipal waste
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for recovery, such as: lower treatments standards, national capacity, proximity principle, self-sufficiency principle, waste management plan, calorific value, hazardous substances, interim operations, mixed municipal waste, national recovery standards in case of lack of EU recovery standards
Objection grounds for waste shipments destined for recovery, such as: lower treatments standards, national capacity, proximity principle, self-sufficiency principle, waste management plan, calorific value, hazardous substances, interim operations, mixed municipal waste, national recovery standards in case of lack of EU recovery standards
5 Ban on waste shipments for interim operations
5 Ban on waste shipments for interim operations
Border area agreements
Border area agreements
Information and transparency
Information and transparency
Comments on the common position and recommendations for the second reading
Comments on the common position and recommendations for the second reading
Of the 103 amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, the common position incorporates 41 (totally, in part or in principle, by means of identical or similar wording, or in spirit).
Of the 103 amendments adopted by the European Parliament at first reading, the common position incorporates 41 (totally, in part or in principle, by means of identical or similar wording, or in spirit).
Sixty two amendments have not been accepted.
Sixty two amendments have not been accepted.
The Council considers that the common position does not alter the approach and aims of the original Commission proposal.
The Council considers that the common position does not alter the approach and aims of the original Commission proposal.
The seven main items of the first reading are discussed below:
The seven main items of the first reading are discussed below:
Parliament and Council have accepted Article 175 (environment) as the single legal base because this regulation aims at protecting the environment and not at facilitating the trade in waste.
Parliament and Council have accepted Article 175 (environment) as the single legal base because this regulation aims at protecting the environment and not at facilitating the trade in waste.
This is also in line with the (non-binding) opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-178/03 (Commission versus Parliament and the Council on the legal base of the PIC-regulation) in which is concluded that a dual legal base is not possible and that if a piece of legislation has both environmental and internal market aspects, the legal base should be environment.
This is also in line with the (non-binding) opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-178/03 (Commission versus Parliament and the Council on the legal base of the PIC-regulation) in which is concluded that a dual legal base is not possible and that if a piece of legislation has both environmental and internal market aspects, the legal base should be environment.
The Council excluded animal by-products totally from the scope of the regulation.
The Council excluded animal by-products totally from the scope of the regulation.
There is no good reason why animal by-products, which, according to the definition in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC, are regarded as waste, should be kept outside the scope of the regulation.
There is no good reason why animal by-products, which, according to the definition in Article 1 of Directive 75/442/EEC, are regarded as waste, should be kept outside the scope of the regulation.
Directive 75/442/EEC and this regulation are both items of cross-cutting legislation covering all waste.
Directive 75/442/EEC and this regulation are both items of cross-cutting legislation covering all waste.
It is, therefore, strange to exempt certain types of waste.
It is, therefore, strange to exempt certain types of waste.
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 relates primarily to provisions on animal by-products and to a much lesser extent to the environmental aspects of animal by-product waste.
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 relates primarily to provisions on animal by-products and to a much lesser extent to the environmental aspects of animal by-product waste.
That waste, in order to ensure that it is shipped in an environmentally sound and responsible fashion, should come within the scope of the regulation.
That waste, in order to ensure that it is shipped in an environmentally sound and responsible fashion, should come within the scope of the regulation.
Also the European Commission is against the deletion of animal by-products from this regulation and considers it to be preferable to bring forward its review of the relationship between this Regulation and regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, so that the results of this review are made public before the entry into force of the Regulation
Also the European Commission is against the deletion of animal by-products from this regulation and considers it to be preferable to bring forward its review of the relationship between this Regulation and regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption, so that the results of this review are made public before the entry into force of the Regulation
The objection grounds for waste shipment were only for a small part adopted by the Council.
The objection grounds for waste shipment were only for a small part adopted by the Council.
In the original Commission proposal, two procedures apply:
In the original Commission proposal, two procedures apply:
· information procedure for non-hazardous waste destined for recovery.
· information procedure for non-hazardous waste destined for recovery.
These shipments can always take place, there are no possibilities to object.
These shipments can always take place, there are no possibilities to object.
· notification procedure for waste (hazardous or non-hazardous waste) destined for disposal and hazardous waste destined for recovery.
· notification procedure for waste (hazardous or non-hazardous waste) destined for disposal and hazardous waste destined for recovery.
Notification procedure means that mutual consent is necessary.
Notification procedure means that mutual consent is necessary.
This means that in the case that both countries agree on a shipment, the shipment can take place.
This means that in the case that both countries agree on a shipment, the shipment can take place.
Objection to a shipment can only be made on the grounds mentioned in Article 11 (for disposal) and article 12 (for recovery).
Objection to a shipment can only be made on the grounds mentioned in Article 11 (for disposal) and article 12 (for recovery).
In the Commission proposal there were not enough possibilities to object a shipment for environmental reasons.
In the Commission proposal there were not enough possibilities to object a shipment for environmental reasons.
This is even more complicated due to the discussions about the interpretation of the definitions of recovery and disposal.
This is even more complicated due to the discussions about the interpretation of the definitions of recovery and disposal.
Many cases have been passed through the European Court of Justice.
Many cases have been passed through the European Court of Justice.
Until now the European Commission has not closed the gap in the legislations or at least clarified the definition in a practical applicable way.
Until now the European Commission has not closed the gap in the legislations or at least clarified the definition in a practical applicable way.
For this reason the European Parliament has chosen in the first reading to give Member States more possibilities to object a shipment.
For this reason the European Parliament has chosen in the first reading to give Member States more possibilities to object a shipment.
This does not mean that these shipments are banned, because it is not an obligation to object: in the case that both Member States agree, the shipment can simply take place.
This does not mean that these shipments are banned, because it is not an obligation to object: in the case that both Member States agree, the shipment can simply take place.
Above that, an objection must be environmentally justified, as proposed in several amendments on article 11 and 12.
Above that, an objection must be environmentally justified, as proposed in several amendments on article 11 and 12.
This means that sham recovery can be avoided.
This means that sham recovery can be avoided.
Council did not accept the ban on waste shipments for so-called interim operations.
Council did not accept the ban on waste shipments for so-called interim operations.
It is hard to understand why the Council believes that these waste shipments can be tracked in order to know that a proper treatment has taken place.
It is hard to understand why the Council believes that these waste shipments can be tracked in order to know that a proper treatment has taken place.
'Interim disposal' or 'interim recovery' will simply bring about a lack of clarity.
'Interim disposal' or 'interim recovery' will simply bring about a lack of clarity.
Waste which must first be stored for a long period, mixed or repackaged causes handling problems and lends itself to fraud.
Waste which must first be stored for a long period, mixed or repackaged causes handling problems and lends itself to fraud.
However, such cross-border waste shipments should preferably not be allowed at all.
However, such cross-border waste shipments should preferably not be allowed at all.
If they are allowed, rapid disposal or recovery should continue to be a condition.
If they are allowed, rapid disposal or recovery should continue to be a condition.
Incentives for interim processing of little value - e.g. for sorting or other treatment where it is not easy to check that it has been done properly - should be removed as far as possible.
Incentives for interim processing of little value - e.g. for sorting or other treatment where it is not easy to check that it has been done properly - should be removed as far as possible.
Furthermore, it is inconceivable that storage, repackaging and mixing of a Member State's waste should not be possible in that Member State (that would conflict with the principle of self-sufficiency).
Furthermore, it is inconceivable that storage, repackaging and mixing of a Member State's waste should not be possible in that Member State (that would conflict with the principle of self-sufficiency).
It can subsequently be shipped if it is intended for final disposal.
It can subsequently be shipped if it is intended for final disposal.
The proposal of the Parliament on border area agreements is accepted by the Council.
The proposal of the Parliament on border area agreements is accepted by the Council.
Amendments from the Parliament on information and transparency were not accepted by the Council and should therefore be re-tabled.
Amendments from the Parliament on information and transparency were not accepted by the Council and should therefore be re-tabled.
Although in a second reading, normally, no new amendments are tabled, some small changes are necessary for clarification and for being consistent with other parts of this regulation.
Although in a second reading, normally, no new amendments are tabled, some small changes are necessary for clarification and for being consistent with other parts of this regulation.
Also, for enforcement an additional proposal is needed.
Also, for enforcement an additional proposal is needed.
The IMPEL–SEAPORT project shows the usefulness of regular spot-checking actions/raids on containers in ports on shipments to strengthen enforcement.
The IMPEL–SEAPORT project shows the usefulness of regular spot-checking actions/raids on containers in ports on shipments to strengthen enforcement.
In many aspects the common position of the Council is an improvement in comparison to the original Commission proposal.
In many aspects the common position of the Council is an improvement in comparison to the original Commission proposal.
The choice of environment as the single legal base, shows that the main aim of the Council is the protection of the environment.
The choice of environment as the single legal base, shows that the main aim of the Council is the protection of the environment.
This was also the main aim of the European Parliament in the first reading.
This was also the main aim of the European Parliament in the first reading.
More improvements for the environment can be made by banning unjustified shipments, objecting to shipments which have no environmental added value, avoiding sham recovery and having a better enforcement of this regulation.
More improvements for the environment can be made by banning unjustified shipments, objecting to shipments which have no environmental added value, avoiding sham recovery and having a better enforcement of this regulation.
The Commission has the important task to come forward with proposals on the Waste Framework Directive and the strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling.
The Commission has the important task to come forward with proposals on the Waste Framework Directive and the strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling.
These proposals are very important for this regulation in order to give clarity on definitions of disposal and recovery.
These proposals are very important for this regulation in order to give clarity on definitions of disposal and recovery.
The aim of this is to avoid waste shipment for sham recovery in the future.
The aim of this is to avoid waste shipment for sham recovery in the future.
Společný postoj Rady ohledně přijetí nařízení Evropského parlamentu a Rady o přepravě odpadů
Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on shipments of waste
Datum prvního čtení v Parlamentu – P[5]
Date of Parliament’s first reading – P[5]
Návrh komise
Commission proposal
ENVI 7.7.2005
ENVI 7.7.2005
Johannes Blokland 12.7.2005
Johannes Blokland 12.7.2005
Georgs Andrejevs, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frederika Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Mojca Drčar Murko, Edite Estrela, Anne Ferreira, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Urszula Krupa, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Roberto Musacchio, Péter Olajos, Vittorio Prodi, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, Jonas Sjöstedt, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Marcello Vernola
Georgs Andrejevs, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frederika Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Chris Davies, Mojca Drčar Murko, Edite Estrela, Anne Ferreira, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Mary Honeyball, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Urszula Krupa, Peter Liese, Linda McAvan, Roberto Musacchio, Péter Olajos, Vittorio Prodi, Guido Sacconi, Carl Schlyter, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Kathy Sinnott, Jonas Sjöstedt, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Marcello Vernola
Elisabeth Jeggle, Seán Ó Neachtain
Elisabeth Jeggle, Seán Ó Neachtain
Angelika Beer , Výbor pro zahraniční věci
Angelika Beer , Committee on Foreign Affairs
(*) Užší spolupráce mezi výbory – článek 47 jednacího řádu.
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure
PE 357.956v03-00
PE 357.956v03-00
STRUČNÉ ODŮVODNĚNÍ.......................................................................................................8
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT.....................................................................................................8
STANOVISKO Výboru pro zahraniční věci (*) ......................................................12
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (*) ................................................12
STANOVISKO Výboru pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku ...........................16
OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY....................16
(*) Užší spolupráce mezi výbory – článek 47 jednacího řádu
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 47
– s ohledem na Smlouvu o založení Evropských společenství, zejména na články 95 a 296 této smlouvy,
– having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 95 and 296 thereof,
– s ohledem na směrnici Evropského parlamentu a Rady 2004/18/ES ze dne 31. března 2004 o koordinaci postupů při zadávání veřejných zakázek na stavební práce, dodávky a služby
– having regard to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts
L 134, 30.4.2004, s. 114 , zejména na článek 10 této směrnice,
114. , and in particular Article 10 thereof,
– s ohledem na rozhodnutí Evropského soudního dvora
– having regard to the case law of the European Court of Justice
– s ohledem na zprávu Výboru pro vnitřní trh a ochranu spotřebitelů a na stanoviska Výboru pro zahraniční věci a Výboru pro průmysl, výzkum a energetiku ( A6-0288/2005 ),
– having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy ( A6‑0288/2005 ),
A. vzhledem k tomu, že článek 296 Smlouvy umožňuje přijmout výjimečná opatření na ochranu podstatných zájmů národní bezpečnosti, která jsou spjata s výrobou zbraní, střeliva a válečného materiálu nebo obchodem s nimi, a přestože tento článek hovoří rovněž o tom, že opatření přijatá podle této výjimky nesmí nepříznivě ovlivnit podmínky hospodářské soutěže na společném trhu, pokud jde o výrobky, které nejsou určeny výlučně k vojenským účelům, dochází často k jeho zneužívání,
A. whereas Article 296 of the Treaty provides a derogation to protect the essential interests of national security which are connected with the production of or trade in arms, munitions and war material, and, although that article also provides that measures taken pursuant to that derogation must not adversely affect the conditions of competition in the common market regarding products which are not intended for specifically military purposes, it is often abused,
B. vzhledem k tomu, že článek 10 směrnice 2004/18/ES stanoví, že tato směrnice platí s výhradou článku 296 pro smlouvy udělené v oblasti obrany,
B. whereas Article 10 of Directive 2004/18/EC provides that, subject to Article 296, that Directive applies to contracts awarded in the field of defence,
C. vzhledem k tomu, že Soudní dvůr rozhodl, že článek 296 neznamená obecnou, automatickou výjimku, že jeho použití musí být zdůvodněno pro každý jednotlivý případ, že může být použit, pouze pokud je to nezbytné z hlediska ochrany příslušných bezpečnostních zájmů, a že důkazní břemeno musí nést dotyčné členské státy,
C. whereas the Court of Justice has held that Article 296 does not amount to a general, automatic derogation, that its use must be justified on a case-by-case basis, that recourse to it is justified only if it is necessary for achieving the objective of safeguarding the relevant security interests involved and that the burden of proof must be discharged by the Member State concerned,
D. vzhledem k hospodářskému významu veřejných zakázek v oblasti obrany na evropském vnitřním trhu, k napjaté rozpočtové situaci v členských státech, k omezování výdajů, k němuž musí členské státy přikročit, a ke značné zátěži daňových poplatníků způsobené výdaji na obranu,
D. taking account of the economic importance of defence procurement within the European internal market, the tight budgetary position in the Member States, the restriction in terms of budgetary expenditure imposed on the Member States and the considerable burden which defence expenditure places on taxpayers,