# CE2004084EN.01061401.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/614 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/614

---

(2004/C 84 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE) and Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject:   Amendment of Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products

Subject:

On 10 February the Management Committee for Wine deliberated on the amendment of Regulation 753/2002 (1) on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products.

1

Since the committee was unable to deliver an opinion because of its failure to secure a qualified majority, responsibility for the future amendment of the regulation now lies solely with the Commission.

The amendment of the regulation concerns the indications to be included on wine labels. The terms previously used on European wine labels to indicate the production or ageing method or a particular quality, colour or place of production will no longer be protected against possible usurpation by non-European producers.

Since adopting its White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission has stood up for the rights of consumers, with a view to restoring and maintaining confidence in a sector plagued by scandals and doubts.

Consumers are entitled to be provided with information on the quality of foodstuffs and their ingredients and such information must be presented clearly to enable them to make informed choices.

For many years, consumer preferences in Europe have been moving towards healthier products produced by environment-friendly methods. Underpinning this trend has been the Commission's ongoing commitment to ensuring and safeguarding quality.

How can the Commission justify its amendment of this regulation, particularly in the light of the outcome of the vote in the Management Committee for Wine on 10 February (47 in favour, 20 against)?

Does the Commission not consider that the amendment of the regulation is at odds with trends in the rules previously adopted governing quality, protection of typical products and transparency?

In drawing up its proposal to amend the regulation, has the Commission taken account of the predominant position enjoyed by the European Union in the world wine market (accounting for 45 % of wine-growing areas, 65 % of production, 57 % of consumption and 70 % of exports)?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

(30 March 2004)

Traditional terms are terms that have traditionally been used for describing table wines with a geographical indication and quality wines psr and refer to production method, ageing method, quality, colour etc.

The rules divided traditional terms into two categories, one open to non-EU countries subject to certain requirements fklassic', ‘château’, ‘classico’, ‘reserva’, etc.) and the second wholly reserved for Community wines with a geographical indication and serving to identify these wines as originating in a particular area or place in the Community (‘vin jaune’, ‘amarone’, ‘amontillado’, ‘ruby’, etc.).

This second category of term was attacked by non-EU countries on the grounds that the Community had created a new industrial property right (additional to geographical indications) debarring them from using the terms in question for their wines on the Community market (e.g. ‘fino’, ‘claret’, ‘vintage’, etc.) although some of these terms had long been in use elsewhere in the world.

The new rules enable non-EU countries to use the traditional terms included in a single list on the Community market provided certain rules are observed that are equivalent to those in place for Community wines.

The non-EU country must submit for acceptance by the Commission a dossier showing that the term meets certain conditions such as:

| — | use of the term is regulated in the country itself, |
| --- | --- |

—

use of the term is regulated in the country itself,

| — | the term to be protected is distinctive or reputed within the country, |
| --- | --- |

—

the term to be protected is distinctive or reputed within the country,

| — | the term has been used for at least ten years within the country, |
| --- | --- |

—

the term has been used for at least ten years within the country,

| — | the country's rules on use of the term must not be liable to result in the public's being misled. |
| --- | --- |

—

the country's rules on use of the term must not be liable to result in the public's being misled.

The dossier goes through a ‘management committee’ procedure under which it is examined by the Commission and by the Member States' representatives. A draft of the measure to be adopted is voted on by the Committee prior to adoption by the Commission itself.

Only if the Committee gives a negative opinion (and not therefore if no opinion is given) does the Commission notify the proposed measure to the Council, which may decide otherwise.

Only terms in the language of the country itself can be authorised (e.g. ‘ruby’ in Australia given that English is its official language). If the country wishes to be able to use a term in a language other than its official language (e.g. the English term ‘vintage’ in Brazil, where the official language is Portuguese, or the Italian term ‘brunello’ in the United States, where the official language is English) the term must be provided for in its national legislation and have been used in the country for at least 25 years (Brazil does not meet either requirement for ‘vintage’ nor the United States for ‘brunello’).

The equivalence of the requirements imposed and the fact that the Commission and the Member States examine applications are guarantees against any misuse or encroachment.

---

(1)  OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.

1

---