WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/00 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of the designation ouzo in the EU-South Africa agreement.
Date: 2000-01-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Africa, designation of origin, industrial counterfeiting, liqueur, spirits, trade agreement (EU)

C 374 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

the South African government accepted a Community proposal

the
In February 2000,
denomination (cid:145)ouzo(cid:146) and the other traditional spirits denominations (3) for the corresponding Community
products at the end of a five year period of transition. Furthermore it was agreed with South Africa that
formal negotiations of the wines and spirits agreement will be resumed in March 2000 with a view to
conclusion by 1 June 2000 and entry into force on 1 September 2000.

to protect

(1) See Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description

and presentation of spirit drinks (OJ L 160, 12.6.1989).

(2) See Annex X to the Council Decision 1999/753/EC, 29.7.1999 concerning the provisional application of the
agreement on trade, development and cooperation between the European Community and its Member States, of the
one part (OJ L 311, 4.12.1999).

(3) Grappa, Korn, Kornbrand, Pacharan, J(cid:228)gertee.

(2000/C 374 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0122/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Protection of the designation (cid:145)ouzo(cid:146) in the EU-South Africa agreement

The new EU-South Africa agreement for easier access to the Community market for South African
products,
including wines and spirits, came into force on 1 January 2000. The agreement on drinks
provides for the protection of the designations (cid:145)port(cid:146) and (cid:145)sherry(cid:146), whereas there is no provision for similar
protection for the production and distribution of Greek (cid:145)ouzo(cid:146), a product with a designation of origin that
is produced in Greece and is entirely and exclusively associated with Greece, nor for Italian (cid:145)grappa(cid:146).

Why did the Commission make no provision for the protection of the designations of the traditional Greek
drink (cid:145)ouzo(cid:146) and the Italian (cid:145)grappa(cid:146)? Does it intend to do so now?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89 of 29 May 1989 laying down general rules on the definition, description
and presentation of spirit drinks (1) sets protective restrictions on the use of certain geographical and
traditional designations applied to spirit drinks marketed within the Community. Among these are ouzo
and grappa. Ouzo can be used only for aniseed-flavoured spirit drinks produced in Greece to defined
specifications.

Annex X to the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the Community and South
Africa, signed on 11 October 1999 (2), makes specific protective provision only for the designations of
origin port and sherry and mentions no others. It does however make clear that a separate agreement
would be negotiated on wines and spirits, inter alia defining in more detail the commitments made on port
and sherry. In these negotiations, held in parallel with those on the global agreement, the Commission has
never left any doubt as to its determination to have the Greek name ouzo and the other traditional names
such as grappa included in the agreement. For some time the South African delegation was unwilling on
grounds of principle to accept such restrictive protection for traditional names and this prevented the
(cid:145)wines(cid:146) and (cid:145)spirits(cid:146) agreements from being concluded to the timetable originally planned. It was only in
mid-February that the South African Government accepted a proposal from the Community whereby it
will protect ouzo and the other traditional Community spirit names (3) after a five-year transitional period.
The spirits agreement, to be concluded before 1 June and enter into force together with the wine
agreement on 1 September, will set out the commitment in detail.

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/29

The Honourable Member
Mr Souladakis (4) on the same topic.

is also asked to refer

to the reply to Written Question E-121/00 by

(1) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.
(2) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999.
(3) Grappa, Korn, Kornbrand, Pacharan, J(cid:228)gertee.
(4) See page 27.

(2000/C 374 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0126/00

by Carmen Cerdeira Morterero (PSE) to the Commission

(27 January 2000)

Subject: Delays at Madrid Barajas airport

The Association of European Airlines (AEA) recently published figures on the operation of the main
European airports in the third quarter of 1999. The results for Madrid airport are abysmal, the only
airports to record worse figures being Barcelona and Milan Malpensa. According to the AEA figures, more
than half of flights leaving Barajas were late (51,9 %), with take-off being delayed by an average of
43 minutes. The figures for arrivals were no better, with 47,7 % of flights arriving late and an average
delay of 45 minutes.

The study also lists the causes of the delays, which clearly show that it is Barajas which is responsible for
the problems, given that only 16 % of cases were linked to delays at other airports, while air-traffic control
at Madrid Barajas and loading and handling operations on the ground were responsible in 31,5 % of cases.
In short, the figures show that the situation at Barajas airport is poor and that it is the airport itself which
is at the root of the problems.

In view of these figures, and given the Commission(cid:146)s wish to establish a single European air space, as
stated by Commissioner de Palacio herself:

(cid:129) what measures can the Commission adopt to improve the situation at European airports?

(cid:129) Has the Commission adopted any initiative in this connection?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2000)

The Commission agrees that the situation of air traffic delays and airspace congestion has reached limits
which are no longer acceptable, and requires urgent and drastic action.

The Commission does not collect statistics for delays at airports. However the Association of European
Airlines(cid:146) punctuality report
for the third quarter of 1999, does indicate the excessive delay being
experienced at many European airports.

As regards delays attributed to Air Traffic Control, the Eurocontrol Organisation(cid:146)s Central Flow Manage-
ment Unit, has indicated that there were problems during the month of December when the delay for all
flights in Spain was higher than that of other States such as for example Netherlands, France and
Switzerland. The reasons for these delays at the time were staff shortages and bad weather (mainly fog).
The situation has subsequently improved considerably and the delays in Madrid in January have decreased
by over a half on the December figures. Thus Barajas is no longer the most penalising area in Europe.

As regards the measures that the Commission could take to improve the situation at European airports, the
Commission adopted on the 1st December a communication entitled (cid:145)the creation of the single European
sky(cid:146), which analyses the causes for that situation and recommends a number of actions to be undertaken
both at Member State and Community level.