WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/01 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council. Right of Resale.
Date: 2001-02-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, approximation of laws, artist's resale right, interpretation of the law, national law, secondary legislation

C 235 E/126

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council Human Rights working group is examining ways to reinforce the EU(cid:146)s policy against torture
and has engaged in the process of drafting guidelines for an EU policy towards third countries on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Swedish Presidency aims at adoption
of the draft guidelines by the Council before July 2001.

(2001/C 235 E/131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0125/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 February 2001)

Subject:

(cid:145)Droit de suite(cid:146)

Is the proposal for a directive on (cid:145)Droit de Suite(cid:146) compatible with Article 295 of the EC Treaty as
amended?

(2001/C 235 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0255/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Council

(14 February 2001)

Subject: Right of Resale

Does the Council envisage the establishment of a centralised European register of all qualifying artists and
their heirs under the draft Directive? If not, how are the natural or legal persons referred to in Article 9
supposed to determine the rights to a work in the event of a claim from two or more persons from
outside the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0125/01 and E-0255/01

(14 May 2001)

The Council considers that Article 295 ECT which provides that the (cid:145)Treaty shall in no way prejudice
1.
the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership(cid:146), is an exception provision in the
form of a genuine reservation of sovereignty. Like all exceptions in Community law, Article 295 is strictly
interpreted. Thus the Court of Justice has held that Article 295 permits the Community to adopt rules
about the disposal or use of property rights including the exercise of national intellectual property rights.
In particular the Court of Justice has held that the Community rules on competition, which do not allow
the improper use of rights under national trade-mark law in order to frustrate the Community law on
cartels, are compatible with Article 295 (1).

Likewise the Council considers that the proposed Directive on the resale right for the benefit of the author
of an original work of art is compatible with Article 295 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as its purpose is to
approximate national provisions in order to eliminate inter alia distortions of competition within the
internal market and in order to allow the artist(cid:146)s resale right to be exercised without discrimination on the
grounds of nationality.

2. With regard to the question of the establishment of a centralised European register the Council
would point out that the Commission has not included in its proposal for a Directive on the resale right
for the benefit of the author of an original work of art any proposal concerning a register of the nature
mentioned by the Honourable Member, nor has the European Parliament proposed any amendment to this
effect at either first or second reading.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/127

Finally the Council would remind the Honourable Member that it is not the role of a Community Directive
to lay down the details of how its provisions are to be implemented.

(1)

Judgment of 13 July 1966, Consten and Grundig v. Commission, Joined Cases 56 and 58/64, ECR p. 299.

(2001/C 235 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0136/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 January 2001)

Subject: EU Advisory Committee on Wine

1. Will the Commission indicate the membership by category and by Member State of the EU(cid:146)s
Advisory Committee on Wine for each of the last five years?

2. What is the method of selection and appointment to this Committee, and what are its precise powers
and functions?

3. Why is it that the wine producers of some Member States (like the United Kingdom) are not
represented on the Committee but must nevertheless abide by EU legislation governing vineyard and
winery operations?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Since the reform of the agricultural advisory committees under Commission Decision 98/235/EC of
11 March 1998 on the advisory committees dealing with matters covered by the common agricultural
policy (1), the (cid:145)Advisory Committee on Wine(cid:146) has been designated as the advisory (cid:145)Standing Group on
Journal (2). An update has been
Wine-Growing(cid:146). The list of members was published in the Official
published twice in the Official Journals (3) to take account of resignations, etc. The list of members by
sector and nationality is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

Under Commission Decision 98/235/EC on the agricultural advisory committees, members are appointed
by the Commission on the basis of proposals from the socio-economic organisations established at
Community level
(Article 4 (1)). The advisory committees serve as a forum for the exchange of
information and advice between the Commission and the Community socio-economic sector. They are
purely consultative. Under Article 1 (paragraphs 2 and 3), the advisory committees (cid:145)may be consulted by
the Commission on all matters relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and the policy of rural
development and its implementation (cid:133) . The Chairman of each committee may propose on his own
initiative or at the request of any of the interest groups represented that the Commission consult his
committee on any matter within its competence.(cid:146)

Members are appointed, as mentioned above, on the basis of proposals from the Community socio-
economic organisations. Members therefore are deemed to represent their Community level organisations,
not their Member State.

(1) OJ L 88, 24.3.1998.
(2) OJ C 370, 30.11.1998.
(3) OJ C 122, 4.5.1999 and OJ C 123, 3.5.2000.