WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/01 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Community provisions on the protection of new plant varieties and enlargement negotiations.
Date: 2001-06-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, accession to the European Union, domestic market, plant health legislation, plant variety right, restriction on competition

C 115 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission concluded that it would continue to be guided by the 1997 Communication when
examining the obstacles (and particularly ‘special rights’) introduced by Member States that hindered the
free movement of capital and freedom of establishment, subject to forthcoming judgments by the Court of
Justice in cases pending in this field. In its institutional role, the Commission will continue to exercise the
powers conferred on it by the Treaty as the ‘guardian’ of Community law.

4.
During the same discussion, however, after noting that the free movement of capital and freedom of
establishment are directly applicable fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty, the Commission
observed that in most Member States the opening up of energy markets had progressed more quickly than
stipulated in the directives, possibly giving rise to some distortions in competition between firms.

The Commission took the view that this situation called for the rules on competition and on state aid
(including for the nuclear energy sector) to be applied strictly, for the second liberalisation package to be
adopted more quickly by the Council and Parliament and, if there were a delay in adopting this package,
for Article 86 / particularly paragraph 3 / to be applied and directives or decisions addressed to the
Member States with a view to removing any distortions in competition, while maintaining obligations to
provide services of general economic interest, and for a swift solution to be found to the problems
associated with charging in intra-Community trade and with the development of infrastructures that
hindered the effective opening of markets.

However, such distortions warrant neither the application of a principle of reciprocity nor the use of
retaliatory measures between Member States, these being concepts that are alien to the Treaty and, in
particular, to the principles of the single market. Indeed, it was pointed out that liberalisation does not give
the
rise to any privatisation obligation. Although liberalisation is going ahead on the initiative of
Commission, particularly through harmonisation, the Member States remain free to decide whether or not
to privatise their firms. Once the decision has been made, the rules of the Treaty still apply.

(1) OJ C 220, 19.7.1997.

(2002/C 115 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/01

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Community provisions on the protection of new plant varieties and enlargement negotiations

It is very important that Community provisions on the protection of new varieties be adopted by the new
Member States upon accession at the latest and without any transitional periods. However, a situation may
arise with regard to the protection of varieties which could be detrimental to the functioning of the
internal market. In certain new Member States, it will be possible to cultivate varieties, which are protected
by national provisions in other Member States, without having to pay a licence fee thus giving rise to
distortions of competition and interfering with the proper functioning of the internal market.

1.
Can the Commission indicate what results have been achieved thus far with regard to plant variety
rights in the negotiations for accession? On the basis of these results, can the Commission give an
assurance that new varieties listed in the Community register of plant varieties, which have already been
rejected by candidate states pursuant to national provisions will be protected in future?

2.
Can the Commission indicate what possibilities there are in order to afford protection to plant
variety rights in any new Member States for varieties which currently enjoy protection in the Member
legislation but which pursuant to Regulation 2100/1994 (1) could not be not
States under national
included in the Community register of varieties despite the derogation under Article 116?

3.
In the enlargement negotiations, is the Commission prepared to offer the possibility of including
varieties, which currently only enjoy protection in candidate states, in the Community register of varieties,
in a manner comparable to that pursuant to the derogation under Article 116, provided that a specific
period is set to this end as of the date of accession and that the new Member States adopt the Community
register of varieties in its entirety upon accession?

(1) OJ L 227, 1.9.1994, p. 1.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/7

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2001)

In the Community, plant variety protection is available as follows:

/ Community plant variety rights under Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on

Community plant variety rights (1), as amended by Regulation of 25 October 1995,

/ Plant variety rights under national laws of 13 of the current Member States of the Community.

Community plant variety rights have uniform effect within the territory of the Community, whilst the
national plant variety rights have their effects restricted to the territory of the Member State concerned.

Cumulative protection by a Community plant variety right and a national plant variety right in a Member
State is prohibited.

With the accession of new Member States, and in the absence of any derogation or transitional period, the
effect of Community plant variety rights already granted prior to the accession would automatically extend
to their respective territories, and the prohibition of cumulative protection would equally apply there.

The problem referred to by the Honourable Member, concerning the cultivation of varieties in an area of
the Community in which there is no protection, had already been noted since the operation of the
Common Catalogue system established by Community law on the marketing of seeds and other
propagating material and has been one of the incentives for setting up a Community plant variety rights
system.

1.
Requests for derogation from the Community plant variety rights system, or for transitional periods
as regards the implementation thereof would have to be notified by candidate countries to the Accession
Conference as negotiating points in their position papers.

Not all of
Community as to submit a negotiating position paper regarding the agriculture chapter.

the candidate countries have reached a stage in their preparation for accession to the

Currently, with 11 position papers received regarding the veterinary and phytosanitary part of agriculture
chapter, 9 candidate countries have made a clear statement that they accept the Community acquis in the
field of plant variety rights, and will not seek any derogation or transitional period as regards the
implementation thereof.

Without prejudice to the outcome of the negotiations on requests for temporary derogations in line with
those adopted under Article 116 of the Regulation on Community plant variety rights for the initial phase
of the system, all varieties protected under the Community system would be automatically protected in the
new Member States upon accession, irrespective of whether they have been the subject of a procedure for
national protection in those countries or not.

This geographical extension of protection would not apply to varieties protected under national plant
variety rights in one or more of the current Member States, even if they are included in one of the
Common Catalogues of Varieties set up by the Commission.

National plant varieties right systems of current or future Member States are not under Community
2.
responsibility, and the Commission cannot
therefore identify what possibilities there are to afford
protection of plant varieties in any new Member States for varieties which currently enjoy protection in
the present Member States.

C 115 E/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission has already offered the possibility of opening access to Community plant variety
3.
protection for varieties which currently only enjoy protection in candidate countries. The conditions
should be comparable to those of the derogation provided in Article 116 (1) and (2) of the Regulation on
Community plant variety rights.

(1) OJ L 258, 28.10.1995.

(2002/C 115 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1683/01

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Lack of security in South Africa: attacks against the Portuguese community

The way in which the apartheid regime was brought to an end in South Africa and the entire process of
transition and the creation of democratic institutions in recent years has been widely recognised at
international
level. This is reflected in the prominent position occupied by Nelson Mandela and the
admiration and respect for the example set by him. It is not our intention to question his role.

However, recent years have seen a wave of violent crime which is apparently linked to severe social
problems and has seriously disrupted South African society. Parts of the Portuguese community in South
Africa, which is mainly involved in running small businesses, have been particularly affected.

Another Portuguese citizen running a small business, Noel Bernardo Nunes, who was 65 and had been
living in South Africa for 40 years, was murdered in Cape Town last weekend. This brings the number of
Portuguese residents murdered since the beginning of the year to ten. According to press reports a total of
388 Portuguese citizens have died in this wave of violent crime during the past
the
Johannesburg area being particularly badly hit.

four years,

The justified alarm which these attacks have caused among the Portuguese community led it to take to the
streets some months ago to demand proper protection. However, owing to a series of misunderstandings
on the part of some sections of the South African Government, this initiative regrettably resulted in
controversy. Even though this is clearly a politically sensitive matter, it is essential that effective action be
taken to guarantee the safety and protect the lives of individuals.

These Portuguese citizens are also citizens of the European Union, which is in a good position to intervene
with the South African authorities and indeed to offer them the necessary assistance.

Will the Commission monitor the worsening situation as regards violent crime in South Africa, which has
led to the deaths of so many Portuguese residents and has caused justified alarm? What steps has it taken
and will it take vis-à-vis the South African Government in this connection?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

The European Commission follows the situation in South Africa closely, including criminality. It feels that
the high crime rate is a threat to South African citizens and foreigners / including Union citizens / in the
country. It also fears the crime situation could affect the country’s reputation abroad, discourage foreign
investment and have a detrimental effect on the economy as a whole.

The Commission has expressed this view vis-à-vis the South African authorities on a number of informal
occasions, either in contacts with visitors from the country or through it’s Delegation in Pretoria.

Although the current Multi-annual indicative programme does not concentrate on crime prevention as a
focal sector, the Commission believes that an improvement in the social and economic situation of the
country will have positive effects on the crime situation. The EU development policy will contribute to
this. In the past, the Commission has funded two programmes for support to the South African police
force, one of which is still ongoing.