disastersistechnicallypossible,theMemberStateshaveimposedcompulsoryinsurancecover.However,
therearecasesinsomeMemberStateswheretheriskissuchthatitistechnicallyverydifficultorevenimpossibletocover.
Impositionof a compulsoryinsurance system at European level does notnecessarily seem to be the
appropriateresponse,asitwouldbedifficulttotailorittothespecifictypesofnaturaldisastertowhichMemberStatesareexposed.Therewouldalsobetheproblemoftheinsurabilityofcertainrisks.
AsindicatedinRegulation(EC)No2012/2002(
2),CommunityassistanceshouldcomplementtheMember
States’owneffortsand,inlinewiththeprincipleofsubsidiarity,shouldbeconfinedtomajordisasters.ThisisthebackgroundagainstwhichCommunityactionshouldbeviewed.
ExistingfundingmechanismsundertheStructuralFunds,theCohesionFundortheEuropeanAgriculture
GuidanceandGuaranteeFund(EAGGF)/dashGuaranteeSection(inthelattercase,underruraldevelopmentinparticular)mayprovideassistancetohelppreventordmitigatetheeffectsofnaturaldisasters.
OneofthemeasuresintroducedbytheCommissioninresponsetothe2002floodswastheestablishment
oftheEuropean UnionSolidarityFund(EUSF).The EUSFwascreated toprovide immediatefinancial
assistanceintheeventofamajordisasterthatwouldhelpthepeople,regionsandcountriesconcernedto
returnasfaraspossibletonormality.Interventioncantakeplaceonlytohelpfinancearrangementsformakinggoodpublicdamagenotcoveredbyinsurance.TheEUSFcannotbeutilisedtofundlong-termpreventivemeasures.
InthecontextofdisasterseligibleforEUSFassistance,thefundingofpreventivemeasuresispermissible
only in the case of operations essential for the immediate securing of preventive infrastructures andmeasuresprovidingimmediateprotectionfortheculturalheritage.TheexistenceoftheEUSFshouldnotrelieveoftheirresponsibilitythirdpartieswho,underthe‘polluterpays’principle,areliableinthefirstinstanceforthedamagecausedbythem;norshoulditdiscouragepreventivemeasuresatbothMemberState and Communitylevel. Paymentsfromthe Fund are, in principle, limited to financing measuresremedyingnon-insurabledamagesandwillberecoveredifathirdpartysubsequentlymeetsthecostofrepairingthedamage.
(1) OJC11E,15.1.2004,p.69.
(2) CouncilRegulation(EC)No2012/2002of11November2002establishingtheEuropeanUnionSolidarityFund,
OJL311,14.11.2002.
(2004/C58E/153) WRITTENQUESTIONP-2136/03
byFrancescoSperoni(NI)totheCommission
(19June2003)
Subject:Improperuseofageographicalterminafoodstuff’sname
TheLazzaronifirm,theproducersofAmarettidiSaronnobiscuits,whichbearthedistinctivenameofthe
Lombardytownwheretheywerefirstmade,isabouttotransferproductionoperationstotheIsoladelGranSassoplant,whichissomesixhundredkilometresaway,inanotherregion.
Isthesaleofaproductbearinganexplicitgeographicaldescriptionthatisinnowayconnectedtothe
actualplaceofproductionpermissibleunderEUlaw?6.3.2004EN C58E/137 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
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