(2004/C58E/087) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1476/03
byMichelRaymond(EDD)totheCommission
(30April2003)
Subject:‘Produceofregionalnatureparks’brand
TheMinistryforEcologyandSustainableDevelopmentinFranceplanstoreviewthebrandname‘Produce
of….NaturePark’.Theuseofthislabeltoaddvaluetoagri-foodproductssignificantlyimprovestheirrecognitionandincreasesemploymentandincome.
WhichEuropeanregulationcouldbeusedasthebasisforcontinuingtheuseofadistinctivebrandthat
helpstoaddvaluetotheseproducts?
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(25June2003)
TheCommissionwelcomesinitiativesaddingvaluetoagri-foodproducts.Indeedsuchinitiativesareseen
asanimportantelementtosustaintheEuropeanmultifunctionalmodelofagriculture.ForthesereasonstheCommission,initsrecentproposaltoreformtheCommonAgriculturePolicy(
1),introducedspecific
measurestosupportfarmersparticipatinginqualityproductionschemes.
Currently only few labels benefit from Community recognition, namely those granted within the
frameworkof:
/dash CouncilRegulation(EEC)No2081/92of14July1992,ontheprotectionofgeographicalindications
anddesignationsoforiginforagriculturalproductsandfoodstuffs(2),
/dash Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14July 1992, on certificates of specific character for
agriculturalproductsandfoodstuffs(1),
/dash Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24July 1991, on organic production of agricultural
productsandindicationsreferringtheretoonagriculturalproductsandfoodstuffs(3),
/dash Commission Regulation (EC) No 1607/2000 of 24July 2000 laying down detailed rules for
implementinginparticulartheTitlerelatingtoqualitywineproducedinspecifiedregions(4).
Atthisstageandwiththelimitedinformationavailable,theCommissionisnotinapositiontogivea
moreconclusiveanswer.Withoutinformationontheexactdenominationproposedtofigureonthelabel,thenatureoftheprotection,thecharacteristicsandtypesofproductsandtherightholdersitisdifficulttoidentifywhichlegalframeworkwouldapply.
However,intheCommission’sviewatleastthegenerallegalframeworkregulatingtrade,labellingand
stateaidrulesshouldbetakenintoconsiderationatanearlystageofdesigningnewinitiatives.
Inrelationtothisreferenceismadeinparticularto:
/dash CommunityguidelinesforStateaidforadvertisingofproductslistedinAnnexItotheECTreatyand
ofcertainnon-AnnexIproducts(
5),
/dash Article28oftheECTreaty,includingtherecentinterpretationoftheCourtofJusticeoncaseC-6/02,6.3.2004EN C58E/71 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
/dash CouncilDirective89/104/EECof21December1988toapproximatethelawsoftheMemberStates
relatingtotrademarks(6),
/dash Directive2000/13/ECoftheParliamentandoftheCouncilof20March2000ontheapproximation
ofthelawsoftheMemberStatesrelatingtothelabelling,presentationandadvertisingoffoodstuffs(7).
(1) COM(2003)23final.
(2) OJL208,24.7.1992.
(3) OJL198,22.7.1991.
(4) OJL185,25.7.2000.
(5) OJC252,12.9.2001.
(6) OJL40,11.2.1989.
(7) OJL109,6.5.2000.
(2004/C58E/088) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1485/03
byRichardCorbett(PSE)totheCommission
(2May2003)
Subject:Discriminationinbuildingsociety/bankshareconversion
1. Is the Commission aware that some UK banks/building societies appear to be using internal
administrativerulestodenytheirinvestorswhoresideincertainMemberStatesthesamebenefitsasthoseinvestors resident in other Member States, regarding allocation of shares when a building society isconvertedtoaplc?Inparticular,theBradfordandBingleyBuildingSocietyintheUKhasdeniedoneofits
investorsashareallocationduringtheBuildingSociety’sconversionintoaplcbecausetheinvestorlivedin
Austria,whereasinvestorswholiveinBelgium,France,Germany,UK,Ireland,SpainandtheNetherlandshavebeenallocatedtheseshares.
2. DoestheCommissionagreethatthisdiscriminationisincompatiblewiththeTreaty?
3. WhatactionwilltheCommissiontaketorectifythesituation?
AnswergivenbyMrBolkesteinonbehalfoftheCommission
(5June2003)
TheCommissionrecentlyreceivedacomplaintconcerningpossiblediscriminatorytreatmentatthetimeof
the process of demutualization of an entity in the United Kingdom. To reply to this complaint, the
CommissionrequestedtheassistanceoftheUnitedKingdomFinancialServicesAuthority(FSA).AccordingtotheFSA,intheprocessofdemutualizationofthatentity,itsmemberswereallottedsharesinthenewpubliclimitedcompanyascompensationforgivinguptheirmembershiprights,exceptforthosememberswhowereresidentincountriesotherthantheUnitedKingdomandwhoreceivecashinsteadofshares.The process of demutualization was governed by the company’s rules of constitution; it was agreedbetweenitsmembers;anditwasnotsubjecttothejurisdictionoftheFSA.Thisexceptionfornon-UnitedKingdomresidentswasapparentlymadewithaviewtotheperceivedextraexpenseinvolvedinissuingsharestonon-UnitedKingdomresidentsandtheinformationaboutthisenvisagedexceptionwasmadeavailabletoallmemberspriortotheabovementionedagreements.
Inthatcase,theCommissionconsideredthatneitherarticle12oftheECTreatynortheCommunitycase
lawofferedanysupporttopursuethematterfurther.TheCommissioncanonlystartaninfringementprocedureonthebasisofArticle226oftheECTreatyagainstaMemberSateifthatMemberStatehasfailedtofulfilanobligationundertheECTreaty.Inthiscase,theissueatstakeconcernsrightsgrantedamongstprivate parties andfalls,in the Commission’sopinion,within the competence ofthe Britishauthoritiesandcourts.C58E/72 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion