WRITTEN QUESTION P-1872/99 by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission. Baden-Württemberg origin and quality mark.
Date: 1999-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Baden-Württemberg, agricultural product, common commercial policy, control of State aid, designation of origin

C 203 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

(2000/C 203 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1867/99

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 October 1999)

Subject: Norwegian tariffs on processed reindeer meat

Traditionally, reindeer meat has been exported from Finnish Lapland to Norway. From the point of view of
the development of the industry, it would be desirable for some of the meat to be exported in processed
form and not simply as meat.

Norway protects its meat-processing industry by means of high customs and import duties. Those on
unprocessed meat are temporarily reduced when the Norwegian meat-processing industry requires raw
materials. As a result, processing of reindeer meat is not viable in Finland.

What will the Commission do to prevent such selective imposition of duties being used to distort
competition within the EEA?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Trade in agriculture and fisheries products (defined as products falling outside chapters 25 to 97 of the
Harmonised commodity description and coding system) is excluded from the scope of the European
Economic Area (EEA) Agreement by its Article 8.

The EEA is not a customs union, so there are no common rules on the alignment or harmonisation of
customs duties or practices. There is therefore no legal basis under which the Commission can take
measures to persuade Norway to alter its tariff structure.

There is a possibility within the EEA Agreement (Article 19) for the negotiation of supplementary bilateral
liberalisation in agricultural trade. However, a request for reform of the Norwegian tariff structure would
undoubtedly result in a reciprocal demand from Norway for a reduction in the Community tariff.
The Commission therefore does not consider that this course would be wise at present.

(2000/C 203 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1872/99

by Evelyne Gebhardt (PSE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Baden-W(cid:252)rttemberg origin and quality mark

Are press reports suggesting that the Commission intends to abolish government funding for Baden-
W(cid:252)rttemberg food product marks correct? What measures are proposed, and on what grounds and on
what legal basis? Which products and which types of mark are affected?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 1999)

The Commission is currently reviewing the Community framework for state aid for the promotion and
advertising of agricultural products (Commission communication concerning state involvement in the
promotion of agricultural and fisheries products (1) and the framework for national aids for the advertising
of agricultural products and certain products not listed in Annex I to the EEC Treaty, excluding fishery
products) (2). This review is meant to clarify the existing rules and to update them in the light of
developments in Community legislation and the carelaw of the Court of justice.
It is not, however,
intended to make major changes of substance to the existing rules.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/77

In 1989 the Commission approved an aid scheme for quality promotion in Baden-W(cid:252)rttemberg. This
approval was expressly subject to the condition that all promotional activities would comply with the
above mentioned framework.

(1) OJ C 272, 28.10.1986.
(2) OJ C 302, 12.11.1987.

(2000/C 203 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1873/99

by Margot Ke(cid:223)ler (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 1999)

Subject: Designation as a conservation area pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC (Fauna and Flora Habitat

Directive)

What legal and technical stage has been reached in the efforts to have the Schm(cid:252)cke region in Thuringia
(Germany) designated as a special area of conservation within the meaning of Directive 92/43/EEC (1)?

What steps has the Commission taken in this respect, or what steps is it planning to take in the future, to
help bring this matter to an early conclusion?

The answer to this question should pay particular attention to the possibility of conflict arising from the
potential mining of limestone at Gorsleben and the plans for the B 71 motorway route with respect, inter
alia, to the importance of the area within the Wippertal-Wipperdurchbruch-Hainleite-Schm(cid:252)cke-Finne
biotope system.

How does the Commission think the efficiency of the internal decision-making processes might be
improved?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Germany has not yet proposed the area Schm(cid:252)cke in Thuringia to the Commission as a site of Community
importance according to Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and
of wild fauna and flora. However, the Commission has been informed of probable very high European
interest due to the presence of different Annex I natural habitat types of Community interest and Annex II
animal and plant species of Community interest including different priority habitat types. This high value
was confirmed by the regional authorities of Thuringia, who are responsible for this and have already
covered two parts of the Schm(cid:252)cke area by including them in a 1994/1995 scientific list for sites meriting
a Natura 2000 proposal. However, no coherent list for this part of Germany has yet reached the
Commission.

The Commission, on the basis of information put forward by third persons, is therefore in contact with the
German government. The Commission invited the German authorities to take a position with regard to the
site concerned as well as a view to two envisaged projects which might have a significant effect on the site,
a limestone quarry and the construction of the motorway BAB 71. However, there is no reply yet. The
objective of the Commission(cid:146)s intervention is to ensure that the requirements of Directive 92/43/EEC are
fully respected.

The efficiency of the internal decision making process of Member States falls under the auspices of the
administration concerned. The task of the Commission in this respect is limited, according to the EC
Treaty, to ensuring that Community legislation is respected.