WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Labelling of textiles.
Date: 2000-04-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common commercial policy, labelling, originating product, production technique, textile product

C 46 E/168

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The main points of criticism are the interference in a democratic process, the type of action decided on by
the fourteen EU States which are to be implemented not within the Union but outside this legal area, and
the controversial action of the Portuguese Presidency which gave the new Austrian government no
opportunity to put its views across.

The author explicitly points out that there are no grounds for the assumption that (cid:145)Austria is a less
democratic country than Ireland or any other EU Member State(cid:146).

In the light of this sound academic study:

(cid:129) is the Council familiar with the study,

(cid:129) if not, does it intend to obtain and examine it, and finally

(cid:129) what does it intend to do to put relations with Austria back on a normal footing?

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council has not examined the study to which the Honourable Member refers, and does not have a
view on it. The measures to which the question refers are not binding on the Council, and the Council has
not taken any view on them.

(2001/C 46 E/195)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/00

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Question H-0191/00

On 17 March 2000 I received a written reply to my oral question H-0191/00 on Israel and Russia. I should
point out that the Council discussed only the first and second paragraphs of my question while fully
ignoring the third, and decisive paragraph. In particular the Council failed to make the link with the action
currently being taken by fourteen Member States against Austria, which was the point of the question. The
question must therefore be regarded as largely unanswered, and I should now like a more detailed answer.

Reply

(10 July 2000)

The Council refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to his earlier question on this issue. Since
the last paragraph of this question was addressed to the Portuguese Presidency, it would not be appropriate
for the Council to respond. This is in any case an issue on which the Council has not taken a view.

(2001/C 46 E/196)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1310/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 April 2000)

Subject: Labelling of textiles

What provisions exist governing labelling requirements at European or multi-lateral
for textile
products from non-EU countries? What steps does the Commission propose to take to introduce improved

level

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/169

and binding labelling requirements so that European consumers of non-EU textile products are furnished
with more information on the country of origin and method of production of the textiles products they
buy?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(14 June 2000)

At European level, the only legal
instrument relating to textile labelling is Directive 96/74/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 on (cid:145)textile names(cid:146) (1), as amended by
Commission Directive 97/37/EC of 19 June 1997 (2). Textile products, irrespective of their country of
origin, may be marketed within the Community only if they comply with that Directive, which provides
for the correct indication of the fibre composition of textile products. Apart from that, Member States
remain free to apply national provisions (cid:145)on the protection of industrial and commercial property, on
indications of provenance, marks of origin and the prevention of unfair competition(cid:146) (Article 14), as long
as such provisions are in conformity with the principles underlying the Community(cid:146)s internal market.

At multilateral level, no specific legislation on textile labelling exists. Any national legislation adopted in
this area therefore has to be judged against the background of general World Trade Organisation (WTO)
principles such as the non-discrimination rule. Furthermore, under the agreement on technical barriers to
trade, WTO members must ensure that technical regulations do not create unnecessary obstacles to
international trade.

Therefore, whilst WTO rules require that any compulsory labelling of origin requirement is applied in a
non discriminatory manner to both Community and non-Community goods, a requirement to determine
the precise country of origin (cid:129) at least within the Community (cid:129) would not be compatible with
Community law.

As regards the specific case of (cid:145)origin marking(cid:146), the Court of justice has ruled that the mandatory labelling
of national origins (such as (cid:145)made in the United Kingdom(cid:146)) is inconsistent with Community law, since it
has to be considered a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited by
Article 28 (ex Article 30) of the EC Treaty. Any origin marking requirement within the Community might
prompt the consumer to give his preference to national products, and would thus have the effect of
(cid:145)slowing down economic interpenetration in the Community(cid:146) (3).

In addition to those legal restraints, due account has to be taken of the likely impact of such measures on
other parties, such as Community manufacturers, given that additional labelling requirements cannot be
imposed on third countries only. The requirement to meet different sets of standards for different
geographical markets would imply an administrative burden on manufacturers operating in global markets.
The lack of mandatory labelling requirements in areas such as origin marking does, however, not prevent
manufacturers from providing additional information on a voluntary basis.

While endeavouring to keep mandatory administrative requirements to a minimum, the Commission
remains, of course, open to examine any suggestions for improvements to the existing labelling regime
which might be put forward by interested parties.

(1) OJ L 32, 3.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 169, 27.6.1997.
(3) Case 207/83.