Zveřejňujeme odpovědi serveru POLITICO ohledně společnosti DEZA

2. 11. 2018

Níže uvádíme email od redaktorky s dotazy. Odpovědi společnosti DEZA jsou psány kurzívou hned za jednotlivými dotazy.

From: Ginger Hervey [mailto:ghervey@politico.eu]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Pavlu Jan AGROFERT, a.s.
Subject: For today -- comment on DEHP and Babis

Hi Jan, thanks for taking my call. As I said on the phone, I have a very short deadline today on this story — I’m sorry for the short notice, but I need a response by 4pm CET if I’m to include Deza’s perspective in the story.

The European Environmental Bureau has told media some information about Deza, and I’m told there will be stories published this weekend in other outlets. I write about chemicals extensively and have looked into DEHP and Deza before — I’m writing a story before the end of the day about it. I would like to include Deza’s point of view and its response to what the EEB is saying.

  • The EEB said Deza’s business model is to produce toxic, obsolete chemicals, and then delay regulation for as long as possible with legal action. What’s your response to this?
    DEZA is one of the largest chemical companies in the Czech Republic. Its business is under supervision of many public authorities. Also, DEZA has to follow strict rules by its production procedures. So basically, we do not understand the statement which you have mentioned, because DEZA is running its business properly and in accordance with Czech, as well as European law. By the way, chemical products made in DEZA are highly competitive not only on the EU market and are essential for many products of daily use, which are surely used even by the EEB members.  
  • Deza has filed six legal cases against the ECHA, two as a sole applicant and four as a co-applicant. All of these cases were dismissed. Were these cases filed to slow down the regulation of the substances involved?
    The only reason was that DEZA used its unalienable right before the court. We strongly disagree with your speculation about slowing down the regulation. DEZA as a co-applicant won one court case and others are still running. Which means, your statement is not correct.
  • Specifically, NGOs have said for Czech representatives on the REACH committee it would be difficult to say there’s not conflict of interest — they vote on authorization applications for a company that their prime minister profits from. What’s your response to that?
    Again, Mr Babis is not owner nor controlling person of the AGROFERT Group for almost two years. Please learn more about the Czech law system, because what you mention is simply not true. And by the way: applications for authorization were submitted back in 2013 – before Mr Babis entered into politics. It´s not fault of the DEZA company, that these authorizations are still pending.
  • Regarding DEHP specifically — has Deza’s production of the chemical been severely limited by the restriction introduced on DEHP under REACH? What percentage of Deza’s uses of DEHP are not covered by the restriction, that would be covered by the authorization application which is pending before the Commissions’ REACH committee?
    DEHP-costumers of the DEZA company won´t be affected by proposed restriction.
  • Arnika has included Deza regularly on its list of top polluters in the country. The company produces several highly toxic chemicals that are supposed to be phased out of use under the EU’s REACH regulation, such as DEHP, DBP,  benzene and coal tar. Has Deza done anything to clean up its production or change its production model in recent years?
    We are not able to answer this question in such a short time you gave us.

Thank you very much. As I said, my deadline is today so I really need a response in the next few hours. I’m sorry again for the short notice, please give me a call if easier.

Thank you,

Ginger Hervey | POLITICO | T:  +32 2 548 12 46 | M:  +32 493 99 93 89 | Rue de la Loi 62, 1040 Brussels, Belgium