WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products

Several bodies licensed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Resources to certify PDO products and to append the PDO identifying stamp on those products use the services of the respective Consorzi di tutela (organisations for the protection of individual products) in the capacity of outside bodies. Apparently, the equipment for marking the products (branding or other methods) to show that they have been certified to be PDO is not therefore in the possession

of the body authorised to certify such products but, on the contrary, held by organisations which have no licence to certify them. The procedure which has been adopted is not in accordance with the general and specific provisions of European Standard 45011, with which the certifying body must comply in order to be recognised at European and national level as qualified and reliable for the purpose of implementing the PDO certifying system. On the basis of the provisions of Regulations EC/2081/92(1) and 2082/92(2) the Consorzi di tutela do not therefore fulfil the requirements laid down in European Standard 45011, as they are not detached bodies and unable to guarantee impartiality with regard to inspections. In addition, private certifying bodies are, by using the services of the Consorzi, losing their independence, impartiality and detached status, characteristics which are essential in the case of bodies whose function is to monitor compliance with the law.

1. Is the Commission aware of the facts described above?

2. Can the agreements governing the relationship between private bodies and the Consorzi di tutela be disclosed and/or given to anyone asking for copies of them, in accordance with the basic principles of transparency?

3. Is it permissible for the Consorzi di tutela, being bodies which do not have the necessary qualifications, to be engaged in activities and services which are strictly the responsibility of the private certifying bodies?

4. Does the Commission regard as lawful the provisions which, on the basis of an agreement between the certifying body and the Consorzio di tutela, require even persons who are not members of any Consorzio di tutela to apply to those Consorzi di tutela for the purpose of obtaining the PDO marking for a product?

5. In view of the above-mentioned inconsistencies, does the Commission consider it advisable to take measures against the Italian Government for directly causing enormous financial damage to a section of producers who, though complying exactly with the regulations governing production, are obliged to pay a competing organisation for the purpose of obtaining the marking of their products and are in some cases actually deprived of the mark of conformity?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 9.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2000)

1. The Commission has received no information from the Italian authorities regarding the points raised by the Honourable Member.

2. The Commission is also unaware of any agreements between private bodies and the Consorzi di tutela, an area governed exclusively by national law.

3. As regards the possibility of employing Consorzi di tutela for activities and services that fall strictly within the competence of private certification bodies, the Commission draws the Honourable Member's attention to its answer to Written Question E-1845/99(1), which states:

As from 1 January 1998, in order to be approved by the Member States for the purpose of this Regulation, private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 of 26 June 1989 (the standard was amended on 18 February 1998).

The Commission feels it would be difficult for the strict requirements in this standard to be met by a consorzio di tutela, which is usually made up of the same producers who would be subject to the inspection required under the above Article 10

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs also stipulates that if an inspection structure uses the services of another body for some inspections that body must

offer the same guarantees referred to in Article 10(3). In that event the designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies are to continue to be responsible vis-à-vis the Member State for all inspections.

4. The only conditions to be met for the lawful use of a name registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical indication (PGI) are those set out in the specifications. If the specifications stipulate that the marking of a particular product is to be carried out by a given body, those provisions are clearly lawful, whether or not the applicant is a member of the body responsible for marking.

5. The Commission is not aware of any anomalies in the inspection arrangements. It wishes to remind the Honourable Member, as it stated in its reply to his Written Question E-2066/99(2), that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 gives the national authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Member States must withdraw approval from inspection bodies where the conditions referred to in Article 10(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 are no longer fulfilled.

In passing, the Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that in the past it has considered at length the concerns and objections expressed, following a complaint from operators involved in the making of Grana padano cheese. That complaint was shelved by a formal decision of 13 October 1999.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 27.

(2) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 46.