WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2165/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Council. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C- 106/96)
Date: 1998-07-14
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: Community budget, European Commission, United Kingdom, abuse of power, budgetary discipline (EU), commitment of expenditure, implementation of the budget, interinstitutional agreement, judgment of the Court (EU)

8.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 96/49

The Council is well aware that under the Treaty of Lausanne, signed in July 1923, the Turkish Government
undertook to grant full protection to churches, synagogues, cemeteries and other religious establishments of non-
Muslim minorities.

In this context, the Council would stress that the promotion of human rights, and religious freedom in particular,
is a fundamental aim of the European Union in its relations with Turkey. It regrets that Turkey currently refuses to
continue its political dialogue with the EU in this area.

(1999/C 96/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2165/98

by Jesœs Cabez(cid:243)n Alonso (PSE) to the Council

(14 July 1998)

Subject: Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)

What steps does the Council intend to take to counteract, as a matter of urgency, the most negative consequences
of the Court(cid:146)s judgment of 12 May 1998 (C-106/96)?

Reply

(3 November 1998)

The judgment delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 May 1998 in Case C-106/96
(United Kingdom v. Commission) gives a reminder of the Court(cid:146)s earlier case-law which makes it clear that, (cid:145)in
the system of the Treaty, any implementation of expenditure by the Commission in principle presupposes, in
addition to the entry of the relevant appropriation in the budget, an act of secondary legislation (commonly called
the (cid:145)basic act(cid:146)) from which the expenditure derives (1).(cid:146)

Further to that judgment, the Commission, within the framework of its responsibilities under Article 205 of the
Treaty, decided to implement, in 1998, certain budget headings for projects known to be politically sensitive.

On 17 July 1998, the Council, the Commission and a European Parliament delegation established a consensus on
a draft interinstitutional agreement on legal bases and implementation of the budget as from the 1999 budgetary
procedure. That agreement was signed by representatives of the three institutions on 13 October 1998.

(1) Point 22 of the grounds of the judgment, ECR 1998-5, p. I-2753.

(1999/C 96/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2169/98

by StØphane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission

Subject: Compulsory bottling in the region of production

(3 July 1998)

In Written Question P-1657/98 (1), which pointed to the risk the Commission was taking in encouraging the
development of a north/south divide by initiatives such as its proposal to amend Regulation No 823/87 (2) I asked
about the lawfulness of national provisions making the bottling of quality wines p.s.r. in the region of production
compulsory.

In its reply of 11 June the Commission upholds the position it adopted in Case C388/95 currently being examined
by the European Court of Justice and its proposal to amend Regulation No 823/97 (3), which incautiously
anticipates the Court(cid:146)s expected judgment in a case, without actually answering my basic questions, which I
hereby reformulate:

1. Does current Community substantive law, in particular Articles 34, 85 and 86 of the Treaty on European
Union and the Court(cid:146)s ruling in Case No 647/90 Delhaize Le Lion v Promalvin, authorize a Member State to
adopt national provisions making it compulsory to bottle quality wines p.s.r. in the region of production?