AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(31July2003)
AmarettidiSaronnobiscuitsarenotprotectedunderCouncilRegulation(EC)No2081/92of14July
1992(1)ontheprotectionofgeographicalindicationsanddesignationsoforiginforagriculturalproducts
andfoodstuffs.NocertificatehasbeenissuedforthemunderCouncilRegulation(EEC)No2082/92of14July1992oncertificatesofspecificcharacterforagriculturalproductsandfoodstuffs(
2)noristhe
nameprotectedasatrademarkunderCouncilRegulation(EC)No40/94of20December1993ontheCommunitytrademark(
3).
In consequence use of the name is not subject to specific constraints (production zone, production
method)underanyoftheseRegulations.
NonethelessundertheprovisionsofParliamentandCouncilDirective2000/13/ECof20March2000on
approximationofthelawsoftheMemberStatesrelatingtothelabelling,presentationandadvertisingoffoodstuffs(
4)thelabellingofAmarettidiSaronnobiscuitsmustnotbesuchascouldmisleadthepurchaser
as to their origin or provenance. Not only does Article 3(1)(8) of that Directive require the actualprovenance of products to appear on their labelling but nothing in the labelling, presentation oradvertisingofthemasindicatedinArticle1maygivetheimpressionthattheproductscomefromtheSaronnoarea.
TheexpressionAmarettidiSaronnomayneverthelessbeprotectedinsomewayinItaly.Tofindoutifthis
issoreferencewouldhavetobemadetoItalianlaw.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
designationsoforiginforagriculturalproductsandfoodstuffs,OJL208,24.7.1992.
(2) OJL208,24.7.1992.
(3) OJL11,14.1.1994.
(4) OJL109,6.5.2000.
(2004/C58E/154) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2159/03
byKarinRiis-Jørgensen(ELDR)totheCommission
(25June2003)
Subject:PossibilityofunfaircompetitionbyEUshipyardthroughforbiddenuseofshipbuildingsubsidies
AccordingtomediareportstheAmericancruisecompany,CarnivalCorporation,announcedon29July
2002 that it had reached an agreement with the Italian shipyard Fincantieri Cantieri Navali for theconstructionofanew110000-ton‘Conquest-class’vesselforitsCarnivalCruiseLinesunit.Thevesselisscheduledfordeliveryinlatefall2005atanapproximateall-incostofUSD450-460million.AccordingtomediareportstheattractivepriceofferedbyFincantieriplayedakeyroleinthedecision.
The price for similar vessels previously ordered from Fincantieri has been announced to be around
USD500 million. In comparison the price for the vessel currently under construction is thereforesurprisinglylow.Thetimedifferencebetweenthedeliveriesofthecurrentvesselandthepreviousonesis1-2years,sothecostdevelopmentshouldhaveaddedafewpercentmoretothepriceofthenewvessel.Thepreviousvesselshavereceiveda9%subvention,andthevesselcurrentlyunderconstructionshouldnot/dashatleastaccordingtotherules/dashreceiveanysubvention.SothismeansthatFincantierigetsasubstantiallylowerincomeforthecurrentlyannouncedvesselthanfromtheonesbefore.
Theastonishinglylowpriceofthenewvesselraisesthequestions,howFincantieriCantieriNavalican
affordtodoso,andwhetherthereisapossibilitythatsubventionshavebeenused,mostlikelyindirectlybymilitaryorders.CantheEuropeanCommissionverifythatnosubventionshavebeenusedinthiscase?C58E/138 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
AnswergivenbyMrMontionbehalfoftheCommission
(30July2003)
Manyelementsinfluencethepriceofaship,andshipyardsmaytakeintoaccountvariousaspectssuchas
ordersituation,relationswithimportantcustomers,rawmaterial,productivityimprovementetc.whensetting the price. Moreover, price and financing conditions of individual orders are business secrets.Furthermore,itisdifficultfortheCommissiontocommentonapressarticle.
However,itcanbenotedthattheshipreferredtointhequestionbytheHonourableMemberappearsto
beverysimilartoashippreviouslybuiltbythesameshipyardforthesameowner,whichwouldimply
significantlyreduceddevelopmentcosts.
Nevertheless,itneedsalsotobeunderlinedthatifaparticularlylowpriceofashipislinkedtoillegal
subsidies,thismaycreatedistortionsintheinternalmarket.Whiletheelementsprovidedinthereferredarticlearenotsufficienttoconcludethatanyirregularitieshavetakenplace,theCommissiontakescarefulnote of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member. The Commissionwill continue to keep theCommunityshipbuildingmarketunderclosereview.
(2004/C58E/155) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2170/03
byMonicaFrassoni(Verts/ALE),LucioManisco(GUE/NGL)
andLuigiVinci(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(30June2003)
Subject:FailureoftheItaliangovernmenttoimplementDirective89/618/Euratom(radiological
CouncilDirective89/618/Euratomof27November1989(1)oninformingthegeneralpublicabouthealth
protectionmeasurestobeappliedandstepstobetakenintheeventofaradiologicalemergencystatesthefollowinginitsArticle5:
1. MemberStatesshallensurethatthepopulationlikelytobeaffectedintheeventofaradiological
emergencyisgiveninformationaboutthehealthprotectionmeasuresapplicabletoitandaboutthe
actionitshouldtakeintheeventofsuchanemergency.
2. TheinformationsuppliedshallatleastincludetheelementssetoutinAnnexI.3. Thisinformationshallbecommunicatedtothepopulationreferredtoinparagraph1without
anyrequestbeingmade.
TheItaliangovernmentincorporatedthedirectivebymeansofLegislativeDecreeNo230of17March
1995,butmadeitsimplementationpartlyconditionalontheappearanceoffurtherlegislationwhichhasnotmaterialisedtodate.
Inpractice,nopreventiveinformationhasbeensuppliedtothoselikelytobeaffectedintheeventofa
radiological emergency. This has recently been confirmed by the local representatives of the ItaliangovernmentinVercelli.
Thisfailuretoprovidepreventiveinformationisquiteunjustifiablyincreasingtherisksattachedtosuch
emergencies:thepublicisnotproperlypreparedandisthereforenotinapositiontotaketheappropriatemeasures.
ThisfailuretoactonItalianterritoryrunscountertothespiritoftheinterventionplansfornuclear
emergencies, ashasbeenmadeclearfollowingaccidentsatseveralnuclearpowerstationsandothersoccurringwiththetransportofhighlyradioactivesubstances/dashaswiththemeasuresnowunderwaytotransferpartoftheirradiatednuclearfuelfromtheSaluggianuclearstorageplant(Vicenza,Italy)totheSellafieldtreatmentplantintheUK.6.3.2004EN C58E/139 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion