WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Substances banned in the production of wine, spirits and other alcohol.
Date: 2000-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: alcoholic beverage, legal basis, vinification

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/53

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Court of

Justice applies certain general rules concerning the burden of proof

in matters
1.
concerning the financing of the common agricultural policy. The Court has consistently held that it is for
the Commission to prove an infringement of the rules on the common organisation of the agricultural
markets (see, for example, cases 347/85, 262/87 and C-335/87). If the Commission establishes such an
infringement, the Member State concerned must then, if appropriate, demonstrate that the Commission
committed an error as to the financial consequences to be drawn from it. In such circumstances, the
Commission enjoys a margin of discretion in evaluating the amount of expenditure to be charged to the
European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund (EAGGF) (see, for example, case C-281/89).

In the fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999, on
the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), the criteria are to be found by which the Commission
is to carry out this evaluation. The Commission regards the term (cid:145)and the financial loss suffered by the
Community(cid:146) as well as the other criteria presented in this subparagraph as a quantitative limitation of its
financial corrections. The financial loss suffered by the Community within the meaning of Article 7(4)
fourth subparagraph does not require the Commission to establish in a precise manner such a loss. The
fact that expenditure has been effected which was not in conformity with Community rules, creates (a risk
of) a financial loss.

For the cases where the Commission is verifying the organisation and functioning of the Member States(cid:146)
control system (systems audit approach), it is hardly feasible or even possible to put exact figures on
shortcomings in these systems and, consequently, to establish with sufficient precision the financial loss.

The control deficiency creates a risk for the fund and a probable loss for the fund. The criteria of the
fourth subparagraph of Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999, allow a rate of correction that
clearly relates to the probable loss.

The amendments to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970, on the
2.
financing of the common agricultural policy, incorporated some of the principles governing the clearance
of accounts procedure considered as basic by the Court of Justice. The first subparagraph of Article 5(2)(c)
of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 as well as the fourth subparagraph were considered to be a codification of
the case law of the Court. Materially nothing has changed except for the fact that the evaluation of the
Commission of the financial correction is now enshrined in a Council regulation instead of only being
based on the judgments of the Court.

Before the amendment of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 the Commission made use of working document
VI/216/93 which provided for differentiated rate of corrections. Working document VI/5330/97, adopted
by the Commission after the changes to Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 and after the introduction of the
criterion (cid:145)and the financial
from its
predecessor. This mirrors the fact that there has been no change in the evaluation by the Commission of
the results of its on-the-spot controls.

loss suffered by the Community(cid:146),

is not significantly different

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2001/C 103 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2050/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(27 June 2000)

Subject: Substances banned in the production of wine, spirits and other alcohol

Would the Commission please provide a list of substances banned in the production of wine, spirits and
other alcohol for consumption and the legal instruments under which the ban operates?

C 103 E/54

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2000)

The rules concerning the production of wines and grape must are laid down in Council Regulation (EC)
No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine (1), and in particular
Chapter I of Title V on (cid:145)Oenological practices and processes(cid:146). The processes authorised are listed in
Annexes IV and V to the Regulation, including in particular the additives and technological aids permitted
in the production of wine. All other substances not mentioned in these Annexes are not permitted in the
manufacture of wine products.

In spirit drinks which have to comply with the definitions laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/
89 laying down general rules on the definition, description and presentation of spirit drinks (2) only the
substances specified in the definition of products can be used, as well as the additives permitted in
accordance with the procedure laid down in Council Directive 89/107/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs
intended for human consumption (3).

As regards colouring matters, the substances permitted must be authorised in accordance with European
Parliament and Council Directive 94/36/EC of 30 June 1994 on colours for use in foodstuffs (4).

Finally, for flavouring these products, only the natural flavouring substances and preparations or flavouring
substances and preparations identical to natural ones, as defined in Council Directive 88/388/EEC of
22 June 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to flavourings for use in
foodstuffs and to source materials for their production (5), may be used.

(1) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.
(2) OJ L 160, 12.6.1989.
(3) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(4) OJ L 237, 10.9.1994.
(5) OJ L 184, 17.7.1988.

(2001/C 103 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2053/00

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Pollution levels in Cartagena (Murcia, Spain)

(27 June 2000)

Cartagena has been one of the seven most polluted towns in Spain since air pollution monitoring began in
1960. The situation has steadily deteriorated since 1996 and unprecedented pollution levels were recorded
in 1999.

Various studies that have been carried out by experts into the effects of pollution in Cartagena point to an
increase in the mortality rate, in the use of health care services, in respiratory disorders and other illnesses
and in the use of medicines. The findings of those studies have however been kept from the public for fear
of causing alarm.

The latest outbreaks of pollution have caused anger in political and cultural circles and among civil society.
The criticism has been aimed mainly at Potasas y Derivados, a company based in El Hond(cid:243)n, which, over
the past weeks, has exceeded the permitted air pollution levels on an almost daily basis, leading the local
environmental authorities to order the company to reduce the plant(cid:146)s output for a period of over twelve
hours.

The conclusion of an agreement for the company(cid:146)s relocation has raised much controversy owing to the
fact that it sets no deadline for either the shut-down of the current plant or the necessary investment in the
new plant, simply stating that the El Hond(cid:243)n plant will remain in production until the new plant is
brought into operation.