WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products.
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, anti-trust legislation, competence of the Member States, designation of origin, marketing standard, restriction on competition, standardisation

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/105

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that people with disabilities must have access to the
same opportunities in order to be able to participate fully in all aspects of society, including sporting
activities and new technology. This is the objective of the Community disability strategy as identified by
the Communication of the Commission of 30 July 1996 (1) on equality of opportunity for people with
disabilities.

Organisations involved in sports for people with disabilities had an opportunity to take part in the call for
proposals published at the beginning of this year to grant funding for transnational measures to combat
discrimination against disabled people. Similarly, in the proposal for a Community Action Programme
2001-2006 to combat discrimination, which was adopted by the Commission on 25 November 1999 (2),
sport is recognised as a fundamental vehicle in promoting equal opportunities for people with disabilities.
Finally,
in future, as far as legal and budgetary conditions permit, the Commission intends to devote
particular attention to the promotion of sport with a view to the integration of the disabled.

As far as new technology is concerned, the Commission has launched calls for proposals in the area of
information technology (IT) applications and services for elderly and disabled people. The legal basis for
this is TIDE (Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly People, 1991(cid:141)1992), TIDE Bridge Phase
(1993(cid:141)1994), the 4th (1994(cid:141)1998 with a budget of EUR 60 million) and 5th (1998(cid:141)2002 with a budget
of EUR 40 million) framework programmes for research and technological development (RTD). The
proposals selected include RTD projects to promote independent living and better integration of elderly
and disabled people into society. Some accompanying measures such as Impact also provide tools to
establish and assess the best assistive technology device which can support access by elderly and disabled
people to IT networks or help them to handle daily activities within the work or home environment. This
also includes leisure activities.

On 8 December 1999, the Commission launched an initiative entitled (cid:145)e-Europe (cid:129) An Information Society
for All(cid:146) (3), which proposes ambitious targets to bring the benefits of the information society within reach
of all Europeans. The initiative focuses on ten priority areas, one of which is (cid:145)e-Participation(cid:146), which aims
to ensure that the development of the information society takes full account of the needs of disabled
people. One of the objectives of this initiative is to make the web pages of European and national
administrations accessible to disabled people.

(1) COM(96) 406 final.
(2) COM(1999) 564 final and COM(1999) 567 final.
(3) COM(1999) 687.

(2000/C 225 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2334/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Infringement of anti-trust rules in connection with the certification of PDI and PGI products

Following the less than exhaustive answer to my previous Written Question P-1845/99 (1) can the
Commission clarify the following:

(cid:129) Article 10(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (2) states that the inspection structure for PDI
and PGI products may comprise (cid:145)one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies
approved for that purpose(cid:146).

C 225 E/106

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

The Italian Government(cid:146)s decision to designate one private company for each product was criticised by:

(cid:129) the Italian anti-trust authority in the notification/opinion of 6 March 1998 published in Bulletin

No 8/98 (cid:129) number 12 in the notification series;

(cid:129) the Lazio Regional Administrative Court in injunction No 2038/1998.

Furthermore, in that injunction the Lazio Regional Administrative Court states that the Italian version of
the EEC Regulation does not correspond to the other language versions, which it considers to be absolutely
clear in establishing, as a principle, that there should be several private inspection bodies.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. whether it is aware of the opinions expressed by the Italian anti-trust authority and the Lazio Regional

Administrative Court;

2. whether it agrees with the views expressed by the Italian judicial and supervisory authorities:

3. what steps it intends to take in this context?

See page 27.

(1)
(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 December 1999)

The Commission was never officially informed either of the opinion of the Italian antitrust authority, or of
the ruling by the Lazio administrative court, although it heard of them unofficially.

It is not the habit of the Commission to comment on decisions of this kind, which fall within the exclusive
competence of the Member States.

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written questions P-1845/99 (1) and E-2066/99 (2),
the Commission does not feel the need to adopt any measures in this respect.

(1)
(2)

See page 27.
See page 46.

(2000/C 225 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2335/99

by Rolf Linkohr (PSE) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Nuclear reactors in the applicant countries

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s position with regard to nuclear reactors in the applicant countries?

Does the Commission intend that the reactors should be shut down ahead of schedule and if so,

2.
what is its timetable for this?

Does the Commission agree with the closure plans for reactors contained,

3.
national energy plans of Lithuania and Slovakia?

in particular,

in the

4.

Can the Commission say whether and when nuclear reactors in Lithuania are due to be inspected?