WRITTEN QUESTION P-0423/97 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE) to the Council (6 February 1997)

Subject: Imports of wines which have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Community law

In view of the excess of wine production in the Community and the persistence since 1984 of imports of wines from third countries which have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Community law, can the Council justify its Regulation No 128/97 ((OJ L 24, 25.1.1997, p. 2. ))?

Article 70 of Regulation No 822/87 ((OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1. )) stipulates that wine may only be imported if certified to be in accordance with the provisions governing the production, marketing and supply for direct human consumption of the country of origin. Article 73 of the same Regulation states that imports which have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Community law may not, other than in exceptional circumstances, be offered for direct human consumption.

However, in Regulation No 1873/84 ((OJ L 176, 3.7.1984, p. 6. )) (which expired on 31 December 1996), the Council introduced the possibility of exemptions, with the stated objective of continuing consultations between the Community and the third country concerned with respect to a possible agreement in the sector, concluding that the period of validity of the exemption in question should be extended up to the end of 1997. Can the Council explain why no agreement has been reached during the twelve years in which the exemption has applied? Can it state what guarantees exist as regards consumer health and protection where the wines concerned do not correspond to the oenological processes provided for in Community law? How does it view the fact of unfair competition of unauthorized third-country wines with Community wines which are fully in accordance with the legislation in force? Should no agreement be reached by 31 December 1997, will the exemption be extended on a year-by-year basis?

Answer (16 May 1997)

It is naturally a matter of regret to the Council that, following such a lengthy period of negotiations, no agreement has been reached between the Community and the third country concerned, although it has to be said that the dossier is of particlar technical and political complexity.

The Council accordingly decided, on a proposal from the Commission, to extend the period of exemption until 31 December 1997 in order to allow the negotiations to be completed during the year. It cannot at this stage comment on the question of a further extension, as the Council can act on the matter only on the basis of a Commission proposal to that effect.

As far as the "guarantees as regards consumer health and protection¨ are concerned, the attention of the Honourable Member is drawn to the fact that the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 1873/84 on the basis of the possibility of a general exemption proffered by the basic wine Regulation. However, the Council restricted the scope of the 1984 Regulation to one third country, for limited cases, notably as regards oenological processes not provided for in Community law, which are permitted for the third country in question only on a temporary basis.

Furthermore, it is clearly stated in the said Regulation that the exemption granted may be reviewed "in particular were it to be found that the use of certain oenological practices could present a public health risk¨.

No commercial distortions were brought to the Council's notice at the time of the successive extensions of the exemption in question. Moreover, account has to be taken not only of the limited scope of the exemption granted, but also of the respective magnitude of the trade flows concerned.