----

(2004/C 88 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:   ‘Made in Europe’ label for goods made in the Member States

At the Euro-Mediterranean conference held in Palermo on 7 July 2003, the Italian Deputy Minister for Production Activities, Adolfo Urso, put forward a proposal that was received with great interest by the ministers of the fifteen Member States, namely that a ‘Made in Europe’ label be placed on EU goods in order to combat counterfeiting and unfair competition.

Owing to major changes in international trade and strong pressure from Asian competitors, appropriate protection and safeguards should be provided for European products on world markets.

Asian countries are not required to certify the origin of their goods under the compulsory reciprocity arrangement with the EU Member States, in which it is forbidden, under the competition rules, to place a national label on most products. Asian goods are therefore placed on European markets without consumers being able to make an informed choice on the basis of a product's place of origin.

However, some countries, such as Japan and the United States protect their products by means of labels such as ‘Made in the USA’ and ‘Made in Japan’ which, while indicating the origin of a given product, also imply given quality and manufacturing standards.

The Italian proposal seeks to provide protection for EU goods, with the general ‘Made in Europe’ label also bearing the name of the Member State of origin.

Given that the conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean conference set out the steps to be taken towards this, not least with a view to the next round of WTO meetings, which will focus exclusively on this subject, would the Commission:

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-3824/03 and E-3902/03

given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission is highly concerned about the current level of counterfeiting and commercial piracy and the harmful effects on EU manufacturers. The protection of right-holders against counterfeit goods constitutes a Community priority and a number of important recent steps have been adopted, including the Council Regulation No (EC) 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (1) and a proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2). In addition, a number of practical steps have been taken to improve customs controls in this area, most notably under the Customs 2007 — Programme (3), which contributed towards Customs seizing almost 85 million counterfeit or pirated articles at the EU's external border in 2002 and 50 million in the first half of 2003.

Unfair imports can also be related to dumping practices by foreign manufacturers. Dumping gives the third country exporters an unfair competitive advantage which causes significant injury to Community producers. The Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries which are not members of the Community (4) regulates the antidumping mechanisms that can be adopted by the Community customs administrations in order to ensure fair trade practices in the international trade relationships. Currently, more than 200 antidumping measures are in force in the Community.

As far as World Trade Organisation (WTO) developments and reciprocity are concerned, it is worth mentioning that in the Doha Development Agenda Market Access Negotiating Group the EU is calling for a narrow, common range of duties applied by all members, especially on textiles and footwear.

In relation to origin marking, some of the Community trade partners (United States, Japan) operate systems comprising compulsory origin marking for imported goods and voluntary origin marks for domestic production. At present, a Community Regulation on origin marking does not exist. Notwithstanding, there seems to be a growing interest in the possibility of adopting a Community Regulation on origin marking, notably in the textile sector, as indicated in the recent Communication from the Commission on the future of the textile and clothing sector in the enlarged European Union (5) arguing the benefits of developing a Community origin marking Regulation for the same sector.

The Commission is currently reflecting on the potential benefits and risks of the implementation of such a scheme considering the interest of all the stakeholders. To this end, the services of the Commission have published a working document ‘made in the EU origin marking’ (6). This paper gives an overview on the pros and cons of a made in EU origin marking and indicates the options to be considered, namely: the option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis; the approach of a mixed system with compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for domestic products; and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for domestic products. The Commission will consult consumers and industry in early 2004 and invited Member States to do likewise.

----

(1)OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2)  COM(2003) 46 final.

(3)  Decision No 253/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2003, OJ L 36, 12.2.2003 and OJ L 95, 11.4.2003.

(4)OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.

(5)  COM(2003) 649 final.

(6)  available online on the website of the Commission: at DG Trade at: http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/115557.htm

----