WRITTEN QUESTION P-1577/01 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Interpretation of the second indent of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines.
Date: 2001-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, GATT, consumer protection, interpretation of the law, marketing standard, preserved product, sea fish

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/195

Recruitment from the reserve lists will continue as and when budgetary funds become available in line
with departmental requirements.

With a view to safeguarding the confidentiality of personal data, the Commission declines to provide the
names of persons already working for OLAF or likely to be recruited in future in reply to a written
question.

(2001/C 350 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1577/01

by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Interpretation of the second indent of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of

21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines

Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing
standards for preserved sardines (1) lays down requirements with regard to the sardine species which may
be marketed as preserved sardines. The second indent of that Article lays down that preserved sardines
must be prepared exclusively from fish of the species (cid:145)Sardina pilchardus Walbaum(cid:146).

However, WTO rules, especially those set out in Article III, Article IX(1) and Article XI(1) of the GATT,
stipulate that what are known as (cid:145)like products(cid:146) (cid:129) such as like domestic products or like products from
third countries (cid:129) may not be treated less favourably.

Is the Commission aware that the wording of the second indent of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2136/89 breaches GATT rules, especially Article III, Article IX(1) and Article XI(1) thereof, since it
prohibits the marketing of like sardine species (such as (cid:145)Sardinops sagax(cid:146))?

Has the Commission taken on board the fact that a prohibition on such like products breaches the GATT
rule on equal treatment of like products?

What will the Commission do in order to prevent a clash between Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89
and the GATT rules referred to above and to create legal certainty?

(1) OJ L 212, 22.7.1989, p. 79.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2001)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 of 21 June 1989 lays down the common marketing standards for
preserved sardines. This Council regulation does not exclude from the Community market other types of
fishes,
like the sardinops sagax, nevertheless it reserves the use of the name (cid:145)sardine(cid:146) to the Sardine
Pilchardus Walbaum. This reserve in the use of the name (cid:145)sardine(cid:146) is in accordance with the traditional use
of (cid:145)sardine(cid:146) in the Community and it is done in order to ensure market transparency and prevent the
consumer from being mislead. However, other types of sardine-like fishes can be freely marketed in the
Community if they use another name that can distinguish them from the (cid:145)sardine pilchardus walbaum(cid:146).

Concerning the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions as to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
compatibility of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89, the Commission would like to explain that in light of the
interpretation of the concept of like products provided by GATT and World Trade Organisation (WTO)
panels, sardines and sardinops are not necessarily like products. But more importantly, even if that would
be the case, Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 does not provide less favourable treatment to sardinops than to
sardines as both can be freely marketed in the Community without any restriction. It is only because of the
is in the Community reserved for the (cid:145)sardine
need to protect the consumer that the term (cid:145)sardine(cid:146)

C 350 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

pilchardus walbaum(cid:146). This reserve is not only justified by a legitimate interest of the Community legislator
but it is also in line with international standards on this matter, like the Codex Alimentarius.

Moreover, that Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 was not enacted as a way to afford protection to the
Community industry is shown by the fact that around 38 % of all sardines consumed in the Community
are imported.

The Commission would like to take this opportunity to inform the Honourable Member that Peru has
requested WTO consultations concerning Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89. The Commission will use these
consultations to explain in detail to the Peruvian authorities why Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 is fully
compatible with the Community international obligations.

(2001/C 350 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1582/01

by Helle Thorning-Schmidt (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of workers from organic solvents

(1 June 2001)

Many European workers, painters among them, are exposed on a daily basis to hazardous substances and
materials, including organic solvents.

One of the main features of European work environment legislation is an emphasis on substituting
hazardous with non-hazardous substances. However, it is not always possible to do so.

Is the Commission considering the possibility of submitting a proposal to improve protection against
organic solvents, and is the Commission familiar with national systems which provide employees and
employers with easily assimilated instructions on the safety measures to take if it is not possible to
substitute hazardous with non-hazardous substances?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The Commission is familiar with the problem raised by the Honourable Member, which concerns the
replacement of a hazardous substance by one which is not hazardous or less hazardous to workers(cid:146) health.

This is also one of the employers(cid:146) obligations set out in Article 6 (2) of Council Directive 98/24/EC of
7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical
agents at work (1).

The Honourable Member is correct in stating that substitution is not always possible, in particular because
of
the specific characteristics of certain chemical substances. However, Article 6 (2) requires other
protection and prevention measures to be taken in such a situation.

With particular regard to organic solvents, the Commission is aware that certain Member States have
produced guidelines to be followed by employees in order to minimise the risks associated with the use of
these chemical substances.

Taking account of experience in the Member States, and in accordance with Article 12 (2) of the above-
mentioned Council Directive, the Commission will in the near future draw up practical guidelines of a non-
binding nature, which will cover inter alia the subject raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.