Question for written answer E-002725/2013 to the Commission Rule 117 Andrea Zanoni (ALDE)

Subject: Waste treatment in Zero Branco (), possibly in breach of the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU and the Waste Directive 2008/98/EC

In 2004, Mestrinaro S.p.A., in Zero Branco (Treviso), a company which, among other things, re-uses inert waste and industrial by-products, submitted a project seeking to obtain an increase in the quantity and quality of special waste (both hazardous and non-hazardous) it could treat. The company, which is based in the middle of a residential and agricultural area that is famous for the production of Radicchio Rosso di Treviso IGP, received authorisation from the Regional Council of to start the work in question, further to Resolution No 882 of 7 April 2009 approving the project, in the wake of the compulsory favourable opinion of the regional EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) Committee. This act was subsequently cancelled by Order No 49621 of the Council of State of 29 September 2009, due to irregularities in the assessment of the spatial and environmental compatibility of the project and because the legal representative of the company had been convicted of the crime of illegal waste trafficking.

Mestrinaro S.p.A. then asked the Regional Council of Veneto to review the project, obtaining a second approval of the same project (after a second favourable opinion by the regional EIA Committee), through Resolution No 100 of 26 January 2010. This act, too, however, was cancelled by the Council of State in its judgment No 6917 of 28 December 20112. Because of this, the municipality of Zero Branco decided to issue a special order3 (later suspended by the Regional Administrative Court of Veneto4) for the demolition of the buildings which had, in the meantime, been built by the company; the also called for the removal of the non-compliant waste which had already been received.

The company removed the waste only partially5, claiming it was having difficulties with the solid waste bearing the code 19 13 026, because, in its opinion, the operation was too costly7. The Province, therefore, decided to meet the company half way and authorised the treatment of such non-compliant waste8. At that point, Mestrinaro S.p.A. submitted its project for the third time, obtaining a third positive opinion from the regional EIA Committee, which is likely to lead to the imminent issuance of a third resolution by the Regional Council of Veneto approving the project.

Is the Commission is aware of this? What steps will it take to monitor compliance with the Community rules applicable to this controversial matter?

1 An order upholding the appeal by the municipality of Zero Branco against Order No 723 of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Veneto of 15.07.2009. 2 A judgment upholding the appeal by the municipality of Zero Branco against Order No 5981 of the Regional Administrative Court (TAR) of Veneto of 5.11.2010. 3 Order No 1 of the Municipality of Zero Branco of 28.2.2012. 4 Further to the upholding of the company's appeal by the Veneto TAR, through Order No 352 of 7.6.2012. 5 Sending the waste to the CO.VE.RI. S.c.a.r.l. landfill of (Treviso). 6 In accordance with the categories under Commission Decision 2000/5320/EC 7 See letter sent by Mestrinaro S.p.A. to the Province of Treviso on 22.06.2012. 8 Decree No 684 of the Province of Treviso of 19.11.2012.

929780.EN PE 507.265