|
ADDITIONAL LEGAL NOTE
On
THE SETTING UP OF THE TEXTILE WASTE
RECYCLING, RE-USE AND PROCESSING SYSTEM IN FRANCE
ANALYSE
OF THE FRENCH DECREE PROJECT RELATING TO THE RECYCLING
AND PROCESSING OF WASTE FROM CLOTHING TEXTILES
PRODUCTS, SHOES OR HOUSEHOLD LINEN PURSUANT TO ARTICLE
L.541-10-3 OF THE ENVIRONMENT CODE
For the attention of the Bureau of International
Recycling (the BIR)
Law Firm HUGLO LEPAGE & Partners
References : 07033009
Confidential – Provisional version
before clients’ approval
22nd
September 2007
Mr. Francis Veys of the Bir asked Anaïs Berthier of Huglo-Lepage law
firm, by e-mail dated 12th September, 2007,
to provide the BIR legal assistance on the question of
the conformity of the project of decree on the
recycling and processing of waste from clothing
textile products, shoes or household linen with
articles of EC Treaty to which Matthieu Wemaëre
refers in the note he realised for the BIR on this
very subject on May 14th 2007.
This note aims therefore at completing Matthieu Wemaëre’s note in
regard of the text of the decree project and of the
specifications appended to the approval of the
organisation issued pursuant to article L.541-10-3 of
the Environment Code that Mr. Francis Veys sent to Anaïs
Berthier and that Matthieu Wemaëre did not have at
the time he realised the note.
I.
Concerning
the existence of a monopoly in favour of the approved
organisation
The question is whether the decree project creates a monopolistic
situation in favour of the approved organisation in
the meaning of article 82 of EC Treaty.
If certain members of the working group in charge of setting up the
decree envisaged “a unique organisation”
committed to the organisation of the recycling and the
re-use and in charge of receiving contributions from
its members, the text of the project allows a
plurality of organisations eligible for approval.
The text of the decree is clear enough :
Title I is referred to as : “The approval of organisms
pursuant to article L.541-10-3 of the
environment code ».
Article 1 states that : « The organisms mentioned
at article L.541-10-3 are (… ). Each
organism created by the persons …».
Thus,
it seems that the decree project allows the setting up
of a plurality of organisms rather than creating a
monopolistic situation.
The
future system seems therefore to have similarities
with the one of the Waste Electric and Electronic
Equipments in which waste producers may choose the
collective organisation they wish to join in order to
conform to their obligations.
Besides,
even if the setting up of a unique organisation was
envisaged, in spite of the words of the text of the
decree, there would not be a dominant position abuse
which is a necessary criterion for the existence of a
monopolistic situation in accordance with article 82
of EC Treaty, since the scale of the contributions
which are due to the organisation is decided under the
control of the public authorities
(CJCE, 1er July 2003, Société
Sapod Audic contre Société Eco Emballages).
Article 2 of
the decree project provides indeed that :
« Le
barème de la contribution est fixé sur la base du
nombre d’unités vendues et/ou de la masse des
produits vendus. Cette contribution peut être modulée
en fonction de différences objectives de situation
dans le traitement et le recyclage des déchets issus
des produits concernés ainsi que pour les produits
respectant les critères du label écologique mentionné
par le règlement (CE) 1980/2000 du 17 juillet 2000
susvisé ou de tout autre système de labellisation écologique.
Les
organismes agrées informent au préalable les
ministères chargés de l’écologie et de
l’industrie de tout changement de barème de
contribution et rendent public ce nouveau barème deux
mois au moins avant son entrée en vigueur ».
Therefore,
the scale of the contributions are determined pursuant
to a calculating method fixed by the decree and thus
by the public authorities. Moreover, the approved
organisations must inform the concerned ministries
prior any change of the scale.
It
can be logically concluded from what precedes that the
decree project does not create a monopolistic
situation, in the meaning of article 82 of EC Treaty,
in favour of the approved organisation.
II.
Concerning the confinement of the recycling
operations on the French territory and the waste
exports restriction
The
obligation for the approved organisations to attain a
precise objective regarding the social integration
induces a confinement of the recycling operations on
the French territory and a restriction of the waste
exports. The extent to which the recycling operations
will have to be realised on the French territory will
however depend upon the social integration objectives
imposed
Article
5 of the decree project only provides for that
specifications appended to the approval of an
organisation sets :
« les
objectifs d’insertion des personnes rencontrant des
difficultés au regard de l’emploi au sens de
l’article L.541-10-3 du code de l’environnement
que respecte l’organisme titulaire de l’agrément
ou de l’approbation. Ces objectifs, exprimés en
volume d’heures de travail ou de formation réalisées
par ces personnes dans le cadre des conventions
conclues avec des opérateurs de tri, sont fixés pour
chaque année de la durée de l’agrément ou de
l’approbation en fonction du tonnage supplémentaire
par rapport à l’année précédente de déchets
mentionnés à l’article L.541-10-3 du code de
l’environnement et triés. »
Yet,
the paragraph «integration objectives »
(chapter 1. 4°b)) of the specifications appended to
the approval of the organisation is blank and remains
to be completed.
Furthermore,
the version of the decree project which has been
transmitted to the Commission does not modify the
recycling operations conditions on the French
territory set by the decree project analysed by
Matthieu Wemaëre. The same conclusions can therefore
be drawn.
It
seems that the decree project should be considered as
contrary to articles 29 and 30 of EC Treaty,
that is to say contrary to the prohibition of
quantitative restrictions on exports or measures
having equivalent effects. It must also be considered
as contrary to article 49 of EC Treaty which
guarantees the freedom to provide services.
However,
this interpretation is, of course, subject to the
sovereign discretion of the Court since the French
State could invoke the objective of social integration
of people experiencing employment difficulties thanks
to the waste recycling and re-use industry as an
imperative requirement of general interest.
In
order for that argument to be accepted by the Court,
the measure should however be proportionate and, in
addition, the State should demonstrate that it could
not adopt a measure as protective but less
restrictive. The lack of precise numbered integration
objectives that shall be attained by the approved
organisation make it impossible to draw a conclusion
on the proportionality of the measure.
No
final conclusion can thus be drawn at this stage.
III.
Concerning the breach of the principle of
equality between companies having social activities
and other companies
The
determination of a breach of the principle of equality
between companies aiming at social activities and
other companies depend upon the disproportionate
character of the difference of treatment just as for
the qualification of a breach of the freedom to
provide services principle provided for by article 49
of EC Treaty.
There
again, in order to qualify the difference of treatment
as disproportionate, it is necessary to know the
precise integration objectives that the approved
organisation shall have to attain. As we have pointed
out earlier in this note, the specifications appended
to the approval of the organisation does not provide
those objectives.
It
is therefore impossible at this stage to determine
whether a real discrimination exist in favour of the
companies aiming at social activities. It is thus
necessary to obtain more information on the extent to
which the realisation of the recycling operations will
be reserved for the companies aiming at social
activities.
|
