WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/01 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission. Unfair competition to the detriment of Italian SMUs as the result of irregular import practices by third countries.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, designation of origin, industrial counterfeiting, restriction on competition, trading operation

C 40 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

(2002/C 40 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1124/01

by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Unfair competition to the detriment of Italian SMUs as the result of irregular import practices by

third countries

For some time the Trieste customs office has been receiving reports of goods arriving from China, Pakistan
and Taiwan already marked (cid:145)Made in Italy(cid:146). These goods are intended for the Italian market and consist for
the most part of cutlery, scissors and surgical instruments.

Although for the purposes of globalisation the countries belonging to the WTO are required to phase out
countervailing duties, at the same time Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (1) amending Regulation (EC)
No 3295/94 (2) introduces new measures to prohibit the release of counterfeit and pirated goods. In these
circumstances, does the Commission not believe that that situation is evidence of unfair competition
against small and medium-sized undertakings?

In order to prevent that situation, does the Commission believe it advisable to introduce a requirement that
the mark of origin be stamped directly on the goods (by mechanical stamping or laser) as, moreover,
occurs in the case of exports to the USA, in order to combat these activities?

(1) OJ L 27, 2.2.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 341, 30.12.1994, p. 8.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2001)

Various measures have been taken to protect intellectual property on the Community market from imports
of counterfeit or (cid:145)pirated(cid:146) goods. Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 amending
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-
export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods introduces new types of rights
to be protected and extends protection to include any goods of third-country origin which are under
customs supervision. However, this Regulation does not cover the notion of false declarations of origin in
any way.

More precisely, the aforesaid Regulation prohibits the entry, release for free circulation, export, re-export,
placing under a suspensive procedure or placing in a free zone or free warehouse of counterfeit or pirated
goods or goods infringing a patent or supplementary protection certificate. The fact that goods may be
illegally marked (cid:145)Made in Italy(cid:146) does not constitute an act of counterfeiting or piracy within the meaning of
this Regulation even if the purpose of the mark is to evade certain customs duties or to mislead the
consumer in his choice of goods.

As regards marks of origin, no Community system yet exists and the rules governing marks of origin on
goods marketed in the Community are determined by the legislation of the Member States. Consequently,
national authorities must handle false marks of origin on the basis of their own legislation.

With regard to the suggestion made by the Honourable Member that the stamping of goods with the name
of their country of origin be made obligatory, the Commission has not yet found any consensus on this
question within Community industry. To comply with the rules of the World Trade Organisation, any such
measure would have to apply both to imported products and to goods produced in the Community.

European producers have instruments at their disposal enabling them to protect certain geographical
designations and to inform consumers about the Community trade mark on their products (Council

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/23

Regulation (EC) 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1) and Council Directive 89/
109/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (2)).

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2002/C 40 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1179/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) and
Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 April 2001)

Subject: Large-scale projects in Greece and operation of the new Athens airport

There are constant reports in the Greek press across the entire political spectrum that large-scale projects
in Greece are completed far behind schedule and overstep their budget by a large margin. An example of
this is the Athens Metro (underground rail system), which (cid:129) again according to the Greek press (cid:129) has cost
no less than GRD 36 billion per kilometre. Similar information is also coming to light about the new
Athens airport. Apart from the complaints about the difficulties of access to the airport and the other
inauguration (cid:129) the opposition
operational problems already identified (cid:129) one week before its official
(whose founder, Mr Karamanlis, envisaged and launched the entire project 22 years ago) have complained
that, while eight years ago a sum of GRD 200 billion was budgeted, the final cost of the project was
approximately GRD 1 trillion.

In addition, it has also been revealed that airfares are expected to rise by 15-20 % with the new airport,
which the same reports claim will directly affect the travelling public, while there are also question marks
over the cost of travelling to and from the airport by taxi or car as tolls have already been announced.
Furthermore, neither the (ever imminent) suburban rail link nor the Athens Metro will enable passengers
to reach the airport from day one, while road access is judged to be inadequate because the new motorway
((cid:146)Attiki Odos(cid:146)) is not yet fully open to traffic and large sections are still under construction. Transport
experts also point out that no pipeline has been built to supply aircraft with fuel and, since there is no link
with the main Greek Railways freight terminal, fuel supplies will have to be brought in by a constant
stream of tankers on the already congested roads in Attica, causing severe difficulties for road haulage.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on the shortcomings of the new Athens airport? Has it informed the
Greek Government of how, in its opinion, the new airport can be made fully operational as soon as
possible and serve passengers in the best possible way without subjecting them to severe inconvenience
and extra expense?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

The Commission knows from its experience with the management of Community funds supporting big
transport infrastructure projects that total project costs occasionally exceed initial estimates. The reasons
for this are manifold and they depend on the individual circumstances. The Commission is not in the
possession of information allowing for comparisons between different Member states in this regard.

In relation to the airport (cid:145)Eleftherios Venizelos(cid:146) the information available to the Commission is that the
fixed construction costs are € 2 155 billion of which 12 % have been financed from Community funds and
46 % from European Investment Bank loans. No major problems have been encountered in relation to the
financial management of this European support.