WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Organic farming.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: horticulture, organic farming, production standard, quality label, redirection of production, restriction on competition, standardisation

C 136 E/94

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2778/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Organic farming

Will the Commission please indicate its assessment of the length of time recognised in each Member State
for a horticulturist to convert from conventional production techniques to organic growing? Will
it
confirm that the period may vary from as little as six months in some Member States to two years in
others? Will it also indicate whether, in each Member State, this conversion is recognised by the trade or
similar body (such as the Soil Association in the UK) or by statute? Does it consider that the distortions to
competition which may result warrant a directive establishing a common standard or at least common
labelling for the EU?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

According to the provisions of Annex I, part A of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 (1), the conversion
period, during which the principles of organic farming have to be applied, is for horticultural crops at least
two years before sowing of the crop. In the case of perennial crops (e.g. fruit trees), the conversion period
is at least three years before the first harvest of the crop. Moreover, it is provided that the inspection body
may, with the approval of the competent authority, decide in certain cases to extend or reduce the
conversion period, having regard to previous use of the parcels.

The Council has thus given flexibility with regard to the length of the conversion period in order to take
into account the previous use of the parcels concerned. The implementation of this flexibility is delegated
to the approved inspection bodies, under approval by the Member State. Effectively, the regulation
provided the conversion period in order to ensure elimination of residues of previous fertiliser and
pesticide use from the soils before products harvested therefrom were marketed with the (cid:145)organic(cid:146) label.
Also the regulation provides that at the start of the implementation of the organic production method, an
inspection body has to visit the farm, define the parcels and establish the previous use of fertilisers and
pesticides which are not accepted in organic farming (2). The inspection body is therefore well placed to
define, under control of the Member State, whether in certain cases the length of the conversion period
can be reduced.

Since the adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, the Commission has discussed several times in the
working group of the standing committee on organic farming the implementation of this provision in the
Member States. Recently a discussion was organised in which the Member States explained their practices
with regard to the cases or circumstances where they would accept the shortening of the conversion
period. It has appeared that in all the Member States reduction of the conversion period is applied under
certain conditions, which effectively may differ to a certain extent between them. Reductions are however
only accepted in cases where it has been demonstrated that the parcels were natural areas, or were not in
use, or were not treated for at least two years with products which are not accepted under Regulation
(EEC) No 2092/91. Certain Member States have however installed a practice by which the conversion
period is under no circumstances reduced under 12 months, while most Member States do not apply such
minimum period.

Currently the Commission is considering in the above mentioned working group the possibility of
introducing such (cid:145)unconditional(cid:146) minimum period as a rule in Annex I of the Regulation. The reactions
from all Member States are not yet known, but first reactions show that some Member States want to
maintain a high flexibility in defining the length of the conversion period when it has been adequately
demonstrated that for a certain period there has been no use of fertilisers or pesticides which are not
accepted under Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/95

Finally, it should be underlined that the Regulation does not prevent certain private organisations from
imposing stricter provisions in order to satisfy the use of their private label.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and
indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198, 22.7.1991), as last amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1437/2000 (OJ L 161, 1.7.2000).
(2) See annex III, section A1, point 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91.

(2001/C 136 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2783/00

by Karin Riis-Jłrgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Danish law requiring a security to be lodged when registering companies in Denmark

Denmark has recently introduced a law requiring a security to be lodged when registering companies. This
is a security for payment of VAT, schedule A tax, labour market contributions and corporate taxation in
cases where the company in question has assets worth less than DKK 125 000. Should the company fail to
lodge a security, it cannot be registered in Denmark.

The law is said to have been introduced in order to prevent companies with a weaker capital base than
Danish-based private limited companies from trading in Denmark, cf. the European Court of Justice(cid:146)s
Centros judgment of 9 March 1999.

Does the Commission consider this new Danish practice requiring a security to be lodged for companies
with assets worth less than DKK 125 000 that wish to operate in Denmark to be in conformity with
Community rules?

How does it view the fact that a company established in accordance with UK requirements (which are
milder than the Danish requirements concerning company capital) cannot benefit from the UK require-
ments when trading in Denmark because there is now a requirement to lodge a security which is of the
same amount as the capital requirement that applies with regard to the establishment of Danish private
limited companies but which cannot be applied to companies from other EU countries wishing to set up
in business in Denmark?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2000)

On the basis of the information currently at its disposal, the Commission is unable to give a definitive
answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question.

As soon as it receives additional information from the Danish authorities, the Commission will be able to
make a detailed examination of the provisions in question and decide whether they conform with the
principles of the EC Treaty as recalled by the Court of Justice in its Centros judgment, to which the
Honourable Member also refers.

(2001/C 136 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2788/00

by Jo Leinen (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens

A German national was stopped on 12 June 2000 near MonbØliard (France) because he was transporting a
radar detention device which was not however switched on (this is confirmed in writing by the police
officer carrying out the check).