WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/01 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fausto Bertinotti (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Pernod-Ricard and Havana Club Rum.
Date: 2001-03-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, World Trade Organisation, brand name, expropriation, international agreement, judicial proceedings, trade-mark law

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/37

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

At the Agriculture Council meeting of January 2001 the Commission presented a report on the experience
acquired by Member States since the implementation of the Directive on the protection of animals during
transport (1). This document has also been submitted to the Parliament.

The report indicates that given the gravity and frequency of the problems currently arising from the
transport of horses for slaughter from Central and Eastern Europe into some Member States, stricter
measures are needed.

The Commission considers stricter rules essential for the improvement of the current situation and has
already taken initiatives in this direction:

(cid:129) The Commission adopted Decision 2001/298 of 30 March 2001 amending the Annexes to Council
Directives 64/432/EEC, 90/426/EEC, 91/68/EEC and 92/65/EEC and to Commission Decision 94/273/
EC as regards the protection of animals during transport (2), to amend veterinary certificates for intra-
Community trade of livestock including horses in order to refer to the fitness of the animals to be
transported. This measure will enter into force from 1 August 2001.

(cid:129) On 9 April 2001 a proposal for Council Regulation concerning ventilation systems of road vehicles
used for journeys exceeding eight hours (3), including requirements for a minimum ventilation rate and
mandatory systems for the monitoring the temperature inside the lorries has been adopted by the
Commission.

Specific measures for the protection of horses including a provision to unload, rest, water and feed the
animals arriving at the border of the Community will be addressed before the end of the year. The
Commission has requested the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare to report on
animal transport, with particular reference to travelling times and loading densities. On receipt of the
report, expected for the end of 2001, the Commission will propose the appropriate revision of legislation
in this area.

(1) COM(2000) 809 final.
(2) OJ L 102, 12.4.2001.
(3) COM(2001) 197 final.

(2001/C 350 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0794/01

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) and Fausto Bertinotti (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 March 2001)

Subject: Pernod-Ricard and Havana Club Rum

In 1999 the USA took legal proceedings, under the so-called Helms-Burton law, against Pernod-Ricard,
which had begun negotiations with the Cuban Government with a view to becoming joint proprietor of
Havana Club Rum, a Cuban company. This had formerly belonged to U.S. citizens, and had then been
confiscated in its entirety by the Cuban Government. The European Commission subsequently lodged an
appeal against the USA with the World Trade Organisation, on the grounds that it was invalid to claim
that legal persons not having U.S. nationality and operating outside the USA were obliged to comply with
US legislation.

Can the Commission provide information on the progress of
outcome?

these proceedings, and the probable

C 350 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 May 2001)

In September 2000, the Community requested the establishment of a World Trade Organisation (WTO)
panel on Section 211 of the 1998 United States Omnibus Appropriations Act.

It is important to note that Section 211 does not deal with the issue of the expropriation of trademarks or
other intangible or tangible assets by the Cuban Government. Section 211 only deals with American
trademarks, i.e. trademarks registered in the United States itself. Ownership of such trademarks could not
have been affected by the confiscations operated by the Cuban authorities in Cuba, as the American courts
have never recognised any effects of Cuban expropriations on the ownership of assets located in the
United States.

Section 211 applies to situations where the (cid:145)original(cid:146) American trademark (i.e. the trademark held by the
owner of the expropriated Cuban trademark) has ceased to exist, e.g. for lack of renewal by its owner, or
where such a right has never existed in the United States. It disallows any transaction related to the
registration and renewal in the United States of trademarks where a Cuban national, or Cuba, has an
interest, taking away (cid:129) over time (cid:129) existing American trademarks from their lawful owners, as they will
no longer be able to renew the trademark registration. Section 211, moreover, prohibits American courts
from enforcing any such American trademark in the United States on the request of a Cuban national or
any foreign successor-in-interest. In other words, it deprives the trademark of any practical value because
a trademark cannot be enforced in any other meaningful way than through recourse to the Courts.

The Community considers that Section 211 entails a denial of trademark rights, which is in breach of
several provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights. The Community(cid:146)s
WTO case is in the interest of all Community holders of an American trademark legally acquired directly
or indirectly from a Cuban owner, which are potentially affected by Section 211.

The Community has already made its views known to the panel, both orally and in writing. The second
and last hearing before the panel took place on 7 March 2001. The panel is now examining the case and
is expected to rule on the issue by May 2001.

(2001/C 350 E/040)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0801/01

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: BSE controls and imports of Argentinian beef

(19 March 2001)

Against the background of the BSE crisis, increasing quantities of Argentinian beef are being imported into
Europe.

This gives rise to the following questions:

1. Are such imports of beef from Argentina previously tested for BSE?

2. Does the Commission insist vis-(cid:224)-vis the Argentine authorities on a BSE test?

3. What animals are in general tested for BSE in Argentina?

4.

5.

Is it the case that imports of beef from Argentina do not normally previously undergo a BSE test?

Is it the case that in previous years European animal meal products have been imported into South
America, including Argentina?

6.

If that is the case, to which South American countries have animal meal products been exported?