WRITTEN QUESTION No. 878/98 by Per GAHRTON to the Commission. Seeds used by non-professional growers in Sweden
Date: 1998-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, GAHRTON
Subjects: Sweden, fruit vegetable, infringement of EU law, leaf vegetable, marketing, principle of subsidiarity, root vegetable, seed

21. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/85

Does the Commission intend to propose amendment to the legislation concerned to remedy this problem?

Will  the  Commission  consider  a  general  exemption  for  traditional  vegetables  or  seed  varieties  for  which  the
volume of sales is low?

(98/C 323/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0878/98

by Per Gahrton (V) to the Commission

(26 March 1998)

Subject: Seeds used by non-professional growers in Sweden

Following Sweden(cid:146)s entry into the EU, the authority responsible for seed control (Statens Utsa¤deskontroll) wrote
to Swedish seed sellers threatening them with prosecution unless they stop selling seeds which, according to the
authorities, are banned under current EU rules, e.g. Easter Egg (radish), Buttercup (squash), Early Cascade etc.,
(tomato) and Feurio (chard).

Does  the  Commission  consider  it  reasonable  for  the  EU  to  decide  which  seeds  non-professional  growers  in
Sweden  may  use?  Is  this  consistent  with  the  subsidiarity  principle?  Does  the  Commission  consider  that  the
Swedish  authorities  are  applying  EU  rules  correctly?  Can  the  Commission  envisage  amending  the  rules  or,
alternatively,  allowing  the  marketing  in  Sweden  of  seeds  which  are  found  to  be  suited  to  the  biological,
ecological and meteorological conditions in Sweden?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0851/98 and E-0878/98
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 1998)

The  Commission  would  refer  the  Honourable  Member  to  the  reply  it  gave  to  Oral  Question  H-246/98  by
Mr Lindqvist during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s march 1998 part-session (1).

(1)  Debates of the Parliament (March 98).

(98/C 323/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0856/98

by Ursula Schleicher (PPE) to the Council

(31 March 1998)

Subject: Implications of the ban on tobacco advertising

In principle › unless special rules laid down by the Member States provide otherwise › the directive prohibits
the use of a tobacco brand name for other products.

Does this ban apply only to the advertising of non-tobacco products bearing this name or to the naming

1.
itself?

The  Member  States  are  to  be  permitted  to  lay  down  special  rules  only  if  the  tobacco  brand  name  has

2.
previously been used for other products in (cid:145)good faith(cid:146). To what must this (cid:145)good faith(cid:146) relate?

If a Member State failed to take advantage of the possibility of laying down special rules, would the ban
3.
apply to the continued use of a name which had hitherto been legally used for a non-tobacco product and which
was  also  a  tobacco  brand  name?  (Example:  Would  the  health  resort  of  St  Moritz  no  longer  be  permitted  to
advertise  its  products  and  services  under  its  own  name  even  though  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  brand  of
cigarettes of the same name?)

4.
At any event, the (cid:145)same name(cid:146) of the non-tobacco product may not be used except in a (cid:145)manner clearly
distinct(cid:146) from that used to advertise the tobacco product. Does this mean that the brand name as such must be
changed for the non-tobacco product? How will it be ensured that differences in the application of this provision
by the Member States do not lead to new trade barriers?