WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/99 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Illegal imports of fish from Russia.
Date: 1999-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, fish, health risk, import (EU), import restriction, veterinary inspection

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/53

(2000/C 203 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1804/99

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Parallel imports

Will the Commission propose a change in the law to improve the position of parallel imports?

Following the judgment in the Silhouette case, parallel importers are prohibited from purchasing trade-
marked goods outside the EU and selling them in the EU unless the trade-mark owner has consented to
the sale. On 19 May 1999, the Danish Ministry for Trade and Industry pointed out that parallel imports
secure cheaper goods for consumers, whereas the Silhouette judgment is to the detriment of consumers of
parallel
from the judgment.
imports alone as Danish trade-marked goods producers do not benefit
The corresponding Swedish report of 11 January is described in Direct Office 9/99, page 27.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 December 1999)

In 1998, the Commission commissioned a study on the economic effects of a possible change in the
European trademark regime on exhaustion of
trademark rights by the National economic research
associates (NERA) Institute (the study is available on the Commission website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/
dg15). In April 1999 the Commission arranged for two hearings (cid:129) one with the Member States and one
with interested circles (cid:129) to discuss the outcome of the NERA study. After a debate in the Internal Market
Council on 10 June 1999, it was agreed that the Commission should present a document to examine
certain key issues in greater detail. Depending on the outcome of discussions on the said document, the
Commission will further develop its position on this important and complex issue.

(2000/C 203 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/99

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 October 1999)

Subject: Illegal imports of fish from Russia

Proof exists which indicates that,
in connection with EU fish imports from various third countries,
irregularities have been occurring for some considerable length of time. Such irregularities could, amongst
other things, threaten the existence of businesses which fully comply with EU law.

In particular the following accusations may be made:

(cid:129) EU registration numbers are allocated by the local authorities in Poland and Russia even though
structural and other EU hygiene standards are not met and the procedure is allegedly the subject of
illegal practices.

(cid:129) Veterinary checks which are supposed to be carried out when fish are cleared for export are

apparently only loosely enforced by the Polish authorities.

(cid:129) Fish fillets from Kazakhstan and the Ukraine which may not be imported into the EU allegedly reach

the EU market illegally via Poland and Estonia, where the fish are repacked.

What action is the Commission to take in order to prevent risks to health arising from illegal fish imports
from third countries?

Are any inspection visits to the suspect countries to be undertaken and, if so, when?

C 203 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

During such visits will suspect companies also be inspected, or just the local veterinary authorities?

If suspicions prove to be well-founded, what action can be taken at borders in order to halt deliveries of
fish?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 November 1999)

The border inspection posts in Member States check, amongst other things, whether imported fish for
human consumption comes from an authorised third country and from an approved establishment.
Community inspections are directed at the ability of the competent authorities to guarantee compliance
with Community standards.

Regarding the imports from Russia, Poland and Estonia, the Commission informed the authorities in these
countries of the alleged irregularities. It requested these authorities to investigate this matter and to inform
the Commission by 15 December 1999 of the possible actions undertaken to stop these practices.

the Commission has is that

A mission took place in Poland in September 1999. Estonia was visited in July 1998. The latest
information that
the problem in these countries has been contained.
No mission was undertaken to Russia recently. However, because of its importance, this issue was raised
in the Community-Russia co-operation committee on 8 October 1999. Depending on the information
provided by the Russian authorities, the Commission might consider a mission. In Poland some establish-
ments approved for export to the Community were visited. The suspected establishments are not approved
for export of fishery products to the Community.

Under Community legislation it is the responsibility of the Member State to check that the imports
originate from approved establishments and to decide the final destination of fish found not to be in
conformity with Community legislation. Therefore the Commission requested the German and Austrian
authorities to investigate these matters and to alert their border inspection posts in order to avoid illegal
imports.

(2000/C 203 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1810/99

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of the conservation area of Kyriotissa

(12 October 1999)

The area of Kyriotissa in Veroia has been declared by the Ministry of Culture and the Fourth Inspectorate
of Monuments (Greek Government Gazette 468B, 9 May 1980) as an historic site owing to its unique
Byzantine and post-Byzantine churches and the traditional architecture of its houses.

However, despite the fact that the area has been designated an historic site and the Local Archaeological
Council has prohibited any activities which are not considered to be compatible with its status, licences
have been granted in Kyriotissa to operate businesses such as bars, clubs and restaurants. I have, moreover,
received complaints from the inhabitants of Kyriotissa protesting against the disruption of the conservation
area (noise pollution, refuse, car-parking on pavements, establishments open in the early hours of the
night), resources for the improvement of which were made available from the Second CSF.

Given that the Commission has also partly funded the project, will it say:

1. whether it intends to examine whether there has been any change in the conditions of the contract
under which the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works incorporated the
project for the protection and development of the Barbouta-Kyriotissa conservation area in the CSF
and, in particular, measure 4.3 of the Operational Programme for the environment;