WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Application of the directives on waste to textile waste in Prato.
C 170 E/28 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 6. 2000 ü the required balance among the various means of transport; ü the required consideration of local transport systems, and especially citizensí networks; ü the required change to sustainable forms of transport to ensure compliance with the pledge to the community to reduce propellant gas emissions; ü the partnership principle, which involves the local and regional authorities and the social and environmental partners in the decision-making on programming; ü the principle of additionality, whereby the Structural Funds must not be misused to plug holes in national budgets. Does the Commission believe that a development plan with these emerging shortcomings can be 1. approved for the Objective 1 area in Germany? 2. If not, what delays can be expected in overall planning in the Objective 1 area? 3. What does the Commission think of the substantial proportion of new basic infrastructure building projects when the interim evaluation for the Land of Brandenburg refers to áquantitatively satisfactory provision of roads and railway linesí and, in contrast to this, a ásharp decline in employmentí? 4. How does the Commission rate compliance with the European principles when ERDF resources are used for road construction projects that entail massive interference in a natural environment that is worth protecting and for projects to which the population concerned is strongly opposed? 5. What practical steps will the Commission be taking to ensure that the Federal Government complies with the principles governing the Structural Fund regulation? Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (7 October 1999) The Commission is not currently able to comment on the issues raised by the Honourable Member because the German plan for the next Objective 1 programming period (2000-2006) has not yet been submitted. The Commission will answer the questions raised as soon as it receives and examines the plan. (2000/C 170 E/029) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1519/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Application of the directives on waste to textile waste in Prato The Italian Government has recently drawn up a decree according to which textile waste will be regarded, for disposal purposes, as a special waste product. However, the decree takes no account of the particular nature of the Prato textile region and may place dozens of local businesses in serious difficulty if it is applied with excessive rigour. The textile waste in question can indeed be regarded as waste once it leaves the factory but it in fact represents a raw material for much of the production in the area. It is obvious, therefore, that application of Directives 91/0156/EEC (1) and 91/0689/EEC (2) would be inappropriate in the case of this particular kind of textile waste. 20. 6. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 170 E/29 Can the Commission answer the following: 1. 2. Should the Commission not call for a postponement of the decree (which is due to enter force on 30 June 2000) and of any infringement procedure which could be opened for failure to transpose the relevant European directives? Should the Commission not examine more closely the actual nature of the textile waste in question and the classification thereof as special waste, possibly by consulting the companies and workers involved and the social partners? 3. Can the Commission make a general comment on the matter? (1) OJ L 78, 26. 3. 1991, p. 32. (2) OJ L 377, 31. 12. 1991, p. 20. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (8 October 1999) Article 1 of Council Directive 75/0442/EEC on waste (1) as modified by Directive 91/0156/EEC reads: For the purposes of this directive áwasteí shall mean any substance or object in the categories set out in Annex I which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard. Article 1, No 3 of Directive 91/0689/EEC on hazardous waste refers to this definition. On the basis of this definition and on the basis of the interpretation of this definition given by the Court of justice, textile wastes cannot be excluded from the scope of application of the Community waste legislation. In its judgement of 25 June 1997 in case C-304/94, 330/94, 342/94 and 224/95, the Court said: The concept of áwasteí in Council Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, referred to in Article 1(3) of Council Directive 91/689 on hazardous waste and Article 2(a) of Regulation No 259/93 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, is not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which are capable of economic reutilization, even if the materials in question may be the subject of a transaction or quoted on public or private commercial lists. In the light of the above, and on the basis of the information and of the reasons given by the Honourable Member, it does not appear to the Commission that the Italian draft decree qualifying textile wastes as special wastes is likely to be in conflict with the Community legislation on waste. It is however only after it has examined the final text of the decree, that the Commission will be able to reach an opinion whether it contains provisions which infringe Community waste legislation. Companies and social partners involved in the matter are well aware of the above mentioned position taken by the Court of justice, which has the prerogative in the interpretation of Community law, as regards the issue of the definition of áwasteí in the Community legislation. (1) OJ L 194, 25. 7. 1975. (2000/C 170 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1522/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: Expansion of the Gardalandí amusement park (Castelnuovo del Garda, Verona) It would appear from its answer to written question E-2513/98 of 14 July 1998 (1) on the above subject that the Commission is unaware of the ill feeling and criticism which, for many years, Gardaland ü which began as a series of buildings put up for the most part its environmental and socio-economic impact. In its present form the park contravenes, most notably, the requirements of the Lake Garda Area Plan, contained in the Regional Territorial Coordination Plan, the overall planning instrument for the Veneto region (2). This plan provides, among other things, for the protection of the landscape and natural resources and, to that end, restricts building on the section of land between the Gardesanaí road and the lake, the area in which the planned expansion of the park is to take place. Two serious environmental issues have not been addressed: noise pollution and traffic. As regards the first, according to recent checks carried out by the regional environmental agency, it is very unlikely illegally ü has provoked, because of