WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/00 by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission. Labelling of turron.
Date: 2000-06-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Spain, confectionery product, interpretation of the law, product quality

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/123

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

(19 July 2000)

While Article 37 of the Euratom Treaty allows the Commission to give an opinion on whether the planned
disposal of radioactive waste is liable to have an effect on other Member States, Article 36 of the Euratom
Treaty requires Member States to communicate to the Commission information on actual
levels of
radioactivity in the air, water and soil resulting from the continuous monitoring carried out under
Article 35 of the Treaty. Such information is received on a regular basis.

Additional studies undertaken by national authorities, e.g. on the radiological effects on Ireland of the
operation of Sellafield, are not required under the Euratom Treaty or its derived legislation. Hence the
Commission has no responsibility to review and assess such studies with regard to their reliability and
contemporary relevance.

The Commission will nevertheless ask the authorities of Ireland and of the United Kingdom whether such
studies are available and how the reports can be obtained. In addition, the Commission is launching a
comprehensive two year study to assess levels of radioactivity in North European waters, on the basis of all
available information. This study will update a similar assessment (Mar(cid:237)na) concluded around 15 years ago.
The results of national studies and assessments will be taken into account.

(2001/C 72 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/00

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Labelling of turron

Some doubts have arisen in Spain with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Directives 97/4 (1)
and 1990/10 (2) on the labelling of
food products and their transposition into Spanish law. More
specifically, manufacturers of turron do not know whether the indication of the quantities of ingredients
(almonds, honey and egg white) should refer to the quantities as used in the manufacturing process or to
the final product since the manufacturing process itself results in a certain wastage, particularly of
almonds.

Pursuant to the said Directives, what should the indication of the quantities of ingredients of turron refer
to, to the quantities used or to the quantities in the final product?

(1) OJ L 43, 14.2.1997, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 69, 16.3.1999, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 July 2000)

Article 7(4)of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising
of foodstuffs (1) (which includes the provisions set out in Directive 97/4/EC) states that the quantity of an
ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacturing or preparation of a food product shall
correspond to the quantity of the ingredient or ingredients at the time of its/their use.

The derogations provided for in Commission Directive 1999/10/EC of 8 March 1999 apply to specific
cases such as volatile ingredients, ingredients used in concentrated or dehydrated form and reconstituted
during manufacturing, or food products which have lost a considerable amount of water during
manufacturing. As regards all other ingredients, the quantity used in the manufacturing process should,
in principle, be the same as or very similar to the quantity in the final product, expressed as a percentage
of the total weight of the product.

C 72 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

The Commission has no information about the technical reasons regarding the wastage of almonds during
the manufacturing of (cid:145)turron(cid:146), nor estimates regarding this wastage. Therefore, the Commission believes
that the quantity of almonds indicated on the label of (cid:145)turron(cid:146) should be more or less the same as the
quantity actually contained in the product, unless specific technical considerations justify the application of
the derogations provided for by Directive 1999/10/EC.

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2001/C 72 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1816/00

by Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Recovery of sums paid out under Article 29 of Law No 427/1993 on unadulterated polyethylene

By virtue of Decree-Law No 331 of 1993, converted into Law No 427/1993, the Italian Government
introduced a levy of 10 % on unadulterated polyethylene. However, there were serious doubts about the
legitimacy of this law from the outset. At Community level the Commission instituted twofold infringe-
ment proceedings (94/4232 pursuant to Article 199 of the EEC Treaty) on the grounds of a blatant
distortion of the Community market caused by the difference in the tax base for Italian goods (the value of
the raw materials) and for Community goods (the value of the manufactured product) and by the existence
of State aid in the event of the tax revenue being used.

Italy was able to avoid losing the case on the grounds that the tax was of a temporary nature, the fact that
it did not use the revenue and that it undertook to eliminate the difference in the tax base. In the
meantime, the adoption of Legislative Decree No 22/1997 abolished the tax, but without solving the
problem of the destination of the sums paid up to that moment and unused because of the veto imposed
by the Commission.

The Italian Ministry for the Treasury, when the matter was referred to it, pointed out that because of
administrative obstacles caused by the Commission(cid:146)s veto, the revenue already entered in the accounts for
the previous years could not be earmarked for the intended purpose (immediate full refunds payable to
those who had paid the sums, or to the consortium Polieco, set up pursuant to Article 48 of Legislative
Decree No 22/1997, the logical recipient of the funds by virtue of the institutional duties conferred on it,
namely the recovery and recycling of polyethylene waste).

Since a law which conflicts with Community law must be repealed retroactively (cf. CJEC 12/7/1973, case
70/72) can the Commission say:

1. what steps it intends to take and what others it will ask the Italian State to take with a view to

recovering the sums paid out pursuant to Article 29 of Law No 427/1993?

2. whether it does not consider it appropriate to make provision for compensation, even if only indirect,
for agricultural producers, the only sector actually adversely affected by the tax on polyethylene
(cf. CJEC 7/2/1993, case 39/72)?

(2001/C 72 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1989/00

by Giovanni Procacci (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Recovery of sums paid under Article 29a of Law 427/93 on non-recycled polyethylene

Italy introduced a 10 % charge on non-recycled polyethylene by means of decree-law No 331 of 1993,
later incorporated in law No 427/93.