WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products.
Date: 1999-12-16
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/135

Is the Commission aware of any references made by national courts to the European Court of Justice

5.
of matters arising from the right of establishment under these Agreements?

Does the Commission intend to take any action in the near future to promote the exercise of the

6.
right of establishment under these agreements?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2000)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member touch upon the right of establishment for nationals of
in the Community for the purposes of business or
Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC)
providing services as self-employed persons.

The Commission has no data or estimates on the number of CEEC nationals who have sought to

1.
establish themselves in the last two years in the Member States.

2. and 3.
The exercise of the right of establishment depends not only on the provisions of the Europe
agreements, but also on national legislation. Therefore, it is not practical to produce any general guidance
or advice for nationals of CEEC or Member States.

The Commission has received some complaints concerning delays in handling requests for the right

4.
of establishment. The complaints are addressed by the relevant national authority.

5.
There are currently four cases in which national courts have requested a preliminary ruling by the
Court of justice on the application of the relevant provisions in the Europe agreements (Gloszczuk/C-63/
99, Kondova/C-235/99, Barkoci & Malik/C-257/99 and Jany etc./C-268/99). The Commission has
submitted observations in all cases. The rulings by the Court of justice cannot be expected before summer
2000.

No special action is foreseen to promote the exercise of the right of establishment under the Europe

6.
agreements.

(2000/C 225 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2445/99

by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Private inspection bodiesfor PDO and PGI products

Regulation (EEC) 2081/92 (1) on the certification of PDO and PGI products offered the Italian Government
the option of accrediting only one private body for each designated product. This decision would appear
to be detrimental to the fundamental rights of those farmers who meet the requirements laid down in the
product specification, as they are obliged to accept both the prices and the inspection standards that the
sole inspection body deems the most appropriate. Moreover, there have been reports of cases in which the
private body, in agreement with the co-operative for the protection of designation of origin ((cid:145)consorzio
di tutela(cid:146)), allegedly adopted inspection procedures which were in direct breach of the rules contained in
the official product specification registered with the Commission.

Can the Commission therefore state which institutions are responsible for verifying that

1.
inspections carried out by private bodies comply with the rules laid down in the product specification?

the

2. Would it not be appropriate to leave the choice of private inspection firms to the free market, to
enable individual producers and producers(cid:146) associations to seek directly the best economic and technolo-
gical conditions for the certification of their products?

C 225 E/136

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.8.2000

Does it not consider that the selection of a single body for each product might be to the serious
3.
detriment of producers of PDO and PGI products, who are obliged to accept financial clauses and services
with no other alternative and with no specific rules on the fixing of prices and the definition of
certification procedures, which are currently at the total discretion of the sole approved private firm?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 January 2000)

In the light of its replies to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written questions P-1845/99 (1) and P-2334/99 (2),
the Commission confirms that 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 (3) stipulates
that (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 Member State in which the geographical area covered by the protected designation of origin (PDO) or
the protected geographical indication (PGI) is situated has the right to determine the inspection structures(cid:146)
composition and number.

Article 10(4) of the Regulation stipulates that, if an inspection authority and/or private body establish that
an agricultural product bearing a protected name of origin in that Member State does not meet the criteria
of the specification, they must take the steps necessary to ensure compliance with the Regulation and
inform the Member State of the measures taken in carrying out their inspections.

In any case, producers must have recourse to the inspection structure provided for in the specification.

Article 10 stipulates
standard EN 45011 (general criteria for certification bodies (cid:129) amended on 18 February 1998).

that private inspection bodies must

the requirements

fulfil

laid down in

Member States are responsible for verifying that the inspection bodies chosen fully meet the requirements
laid down by that standard.

See page 27.
See page 105.

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

(2000/C 225 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/99

by Sergio Berlato (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: New Holland (cid:129) Case

The Antitrust Committee chaired by Commissioner Mario Monti has approved the acquisition of the
American group Case, market leader in the production of agricultural machinery, by the Fiat (cid:129) New
Holland group.

The Commission, recognizing that the new group(cid:146)s dominant position would be enhanced, has allegedly
made the approval conditional on the group divesting itself of several product lines and plants situated in
the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Italy.