WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94.
Date: 1999-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Regulation, Italy, approval, competence of the Member States, designation of origin, economic support, hard cheese, infringement of EU law, private sector, restriction on competition, storage of food

C 225 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

The study reveals that the proportion of people receiving such assistance varies widely across the EU
Member States assessed therein.

Paradoxically, in some instances the standard of living enjoyed by the recipients of these social security
benefits matches that of the remainder of the population in the country concerned and in other instances
even exceeds the average.

The impact of the various benefits on reducing the number of (cid:145)poor people(cid:146) is very uneven, since the
extent to which the said benefits are targeted at this sector of the population varies considerably from one
Member State to another.

Furthermore, in some cases the other social security benefits paid out to citizens are virtually on a par with
the pensions they receive, whereas in other cases they amount to far less.

Can the Commission corroborate these facts? If so, what is its assessment of the extent to which the
treatment received by EU citizens in the welfare sector differs? Can the Commission say what precautions
it will take to reduce these disparities?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

This analysis on the redistributive effect of social benefits in the Community was undertaken by the
Commission in collaboration with the French ministry of employment and solidarity. It is based on the
(ECHP), which is the only Community
1995 wave of
harmonised source for data on income in general and social transfers in particular. The ECHP is a survey
based on a sample of some 60 500 Community households (170 000 individuals).

the European Community household panel

The analysis confirms that on average about a quarter of the total income of Europeans is made up of
social transfers; pensions guarantee a standard of living to those drawing pensions which is close to the
standard of living for the population as a whole; social benefits other than pensions are intensively targeted
at the sector of the population with the lowest incomes and succeed, as a result,
in reducing the
proportion of people living on a low income by a quarter or more in most Member States. The higher
inequality and poverty before transfers and the higher the share of such social transfers in total income,
the higher their impact on reducing poverty and disparities in income.

These findings illustrate and confirm the important redistributive effect of social transfers and benefits as
an important principle of the European social model. Moreover, as data include cash transfers only (and
not benefits in kind), the redistributive impact of social protection is likely to be even higher.

The analysis also highlights significant differences between Member States and the need for strengthening
cooperation at Community level. The Commission has proposed (cid:145)A concerted strategy for modernising
social protection(cid:146) (1), based on dialogue, exchange of experience and evaluation of ongoing policy
developments, to guide future action and cooperation in this field.

(1) COM(1999) 347 final.

(2000/C 225 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(12 November 1999)

Subject: Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94

For several years now, the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and the bodies coming under its authority have
been discriminating against some producers of PDO Grana padano cheese by preventing them from

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/47

benefiting directly from the private storage aid available under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94 (1). This has
led to substantial loss of income for such producers and hampered their ability to compete freely in the
marketing of their products. Even after the entry into force of new Community and national provisions on
PDO and PGI products, the (cid:145)consorzi di tutela(cid:146) (regulatory bodies) have, against payment, continued to
certify cheeses subject to such certification as being of sound, merchantable quality, without having the
right to do so and, furthermore, without inspecting them when they are placed in storage. This situation
has continued even after Ministry of Agriculture authorisation was granted to private certification firms
and the Central Anti-Fraud Office.

Given the above, would the Commission state:

1. whether it is aware of this situation;

2. whether individual producers or groups of producers may benefit directly from the aid available under

Regulation (EEC) 2659/94;

3. whether the precedence given to the (cid:145)consorzi di tutela(cid:146) over the authorised private certification firms
should not be deemed to undermine the independence and freedom to compete of those firms;

4. whether the (cid:145)consorzi di tutela(cid:146) meet the requirement that bodies responsible for certifying PDO and

PGI products must be (cid:145)third parties(cid:146);

5. whether it would not agree that action should be taken against the Italian Government in view of the
manifest irregularities which have arisen during implementation of the provisions of Regulations (EEC)
2081/92 (2) and 2659/94?

(1) OJ L 284, 1.11.1994, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 1999)

In the absence of concrete, detailed information on the matter, the Commission is not in a position to give
a full and final response regarding the complaints made by the Honourable Member.

Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to clarify the following points concerning the relationship between
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2659/
94 of 31 October 1994 on detailed rules for the granting of private storage aid for Grana padano,
Parmigiano-Reggiano and Provolone cheeses, cited by the Honourable Member, as regards the protected
designation of origin (cid:145)grana padano(cid:146).

Under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, (cid:145)An inspection structure may comprise one or more
designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member State(cid:146).
The designated inspection authorities must offer adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and
have at their disposal the necessary staff and technical resources. In addition, from 1 January 1998 private
bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011.

However, fulfilling the requirements of this standard does not necessarily confer on a private body the
right to certify products with the (cid:145)grana padano(cid:146) protected designation of origin. Article 10 gives national
authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Conse-
quently, the Commission could not require the Italian authorities to approve any private body that fulfils
requirements laid down in standard EN 45011, as meeting this standard does not in itself confer any
rights.

The Italian authorities have designated the private body CSQA (Certificazione qualit(cid:224) agroalimentare) to
carry out the inspection of production of this cheese.

Quite clearly, if the cheese were not inspected by CSQA, it could not bear the (cid:145)grana padano(cid:146) name and
consequently no aid under Regulation (EC) No 2659/94 could be claimed.

C 225 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2659/94, private storage aid for grana padano cheeses may be
granted to any natural or legal person able to prove ownership of the cheeses in private storage and
complying with the regulation, and in particular the undertakings mentioned in Article 3 point (d).

If the Honourable Member considers that these requirements were not fulfilled, the Commission would be
grateful if he could pass on any concrete evidence to prove this, to allow the appropriate proceedings to be
initiated within the limits of and in accordance with the powers available to the Commission under the
principle of subsidiarity.

(2000/C 225 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/99

by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 1999)

Subject: Application of the Packaging Directive to ornamental plant growing

is not possible to decide on the basis of either Directive 94/62/EC (1) or of

the Commission(cid:146)s
It
interpretative memorandum of 10 June 1999 whether flower pots do, or do not, constitute packaging
within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Directive or, indeed, whether they fall within the scope of the
Directive at all. As a result, each Member State has to decide itself which flower pots are clearly functional
and which are used primarily as packaging. The situation thus varies from one Member State to another.
Nevertheless, the purpose of the Packaging Directive, as specified in Article 1 thereof, is to ensure the
functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.

Is the Commission not worried that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to
serious distortion of competition amongst ornamental plant growers in the various Member States?

Will it clarify whether flower pots that are not (cid:145)intended to remain with the plant for the whole of its life(cid:146)
do, or do not, constitute packaging? Is it possible to interpret the Directive in such a way that no flower
pots of any kind are included within its scope?

Will the Commission indicate which Member States regard flower pots as (cid:145)packaging(cid:146) within the meaning
of Directive 94/62/EC, and which do not?

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

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

(17 January 2000)

The definition of packaging has proved difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots.
The Commission is fully aware that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to
market distortion. For that reason, the Commission has been working on the issue with experts of Member
States. The outcome of these discussions is that it would be useful to complement the current definition by
a new technical guidance annexe to the Directive. This technical guidance would be based on the results of
the exchange of opinions held in the frame of a structured dialogue between all those involved in the
packaging chain (cid:129) Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and
consumers.

The definition of packaging in Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging
waste, can only be interpreted by the Court of justice.

An exhaustive list of the different interpretation of flower pots as (cid:145)packaging(cid:146) in the Member States is not
currently available.