WRITTEN QUESTION P-3453/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The sardine-canning industry and designations of origin.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Peru, Venezuela, World Trade Organisation, designation of origin, import, preserved product, restriction on competition, sea fish

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/181

As for incentives under European funds, the Commission can state that Wärtsilä did not receive any aid
from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) but from the European Social Fund (ESF) as part of
the 1997-1999 SPD in support of vocational training.

Given that the Commission has not found proof of the illegal use of financial or other incentives, it cannot
reply to the Honourable Member’s last question. The general purpose of Commission aid is to alleviate the
negative effects on competition of aid granted by national authorities. ‘Subsidy shopping’ is one example of
the negative impact of state aid on competition and should, therefore, be avoided. If an investigation
shows that Wärtsilä received aid incompatible with the Treaty, the Commission will take the necessary
measures and will, where appropriate, recover the aid illegally paid. It does not have the power to demand
that Wärtsilä suspend its relocation decision, even during the investigation.

(2002/C 147 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3453/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: The sardine-canning industry and designations of origin

(6 December 2001)

The sardine-canning industry is under enormous pressure, owing to an increase in low-price imports and
the difficulties it experiences in securing regular supplies of
its raw materials. These factors are
compounded by a new one, namely competition from imports of products which, although not sardines,
pass as such, thereby confusing consumers, undermining the quality of the product and creating unfair
competition.

The marketing rules laid down in Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 (1) clearly state that only
products prepared exclusively from fish of the species Sardina pilchardus Walbaum may be marketed as
preserved sardines. However, it appears that Latin American countries, in particular Peru, are exporting
products described as ‘Pacific sardines’ or as being ‘sardine-style’, which are derived from a different species
(Sardinops sagax) and are sold at prices well below Community ones. It may be recalled that, at the WTO
conference in Doha, very little progress was made on protecting designations of origin.

In view of the above, would the Commission answer the following questions?

= Can it confirm the above facts and, if so, indicate what action it is taking in order to remedy this state

of affairs?

= What does it think of the idea of setting up a Community reference laboratory for the purpose of
checking the quality of fisheries products (including imports) and the rules under which they are
marketed within the EU?

= What does it think of the idea of establishing a temporary scheme for the payment of compensation

and/or consumption aid to the sardine-canning industry?

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

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2002)

Peru and Venezuela have complained on several occasions about Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2136/89 of
21 June 1989, laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines as they consider that by
prohibiting the marketing of their ‘sardinops’ (Peru) and ‘sardinella aurita’ (Venezuela) under the trade
description ‘sardine of Peru/Venezuela’, the Community is acting in breach of the Codex Alimentarius
standard and in breach of Article III General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

C 147 E/182

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

The Community response to these concerns has always been that Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 is in line
with Codex, as its is necessary to avoid consumers being mislead, and in line with GATT as it does not
discriminate against
imported ‘sardines’. The objective of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 is market
transparency and consumer information.

On 24 July 2001 a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel was established at the request of Peru to
examine the WTO compatibility of Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89. Peru claims that the Community
Regulation violates the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and article III of GATT as it does not
allow the use of the trade description ‘sardine’ for Peru’s ‘sardinops’.

Venezuela, Canada, United States, Chile, Ecuador and Colombia are third parties to this procedure and
support Peru as they also have species of fish that they would like to sell under the trade description
‘sardine’ in the Community.

Parties have already submitted their first submissions and the first meeting with the panel has been held on
27-28 November 2001. The final report to WTO members is expected by the beginning of April 2002.
The Commission is convinced that Regulation (EEC) No 2136/89 is fully in line with its international
obligations and does not constitute a discriminatory measure vis-à-vis any of the Andean countries or any
other WTO Member.

With regard to the reference laboratories, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its
answer to Written Question E-3971/98 by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (1).

Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 of 17 December 1999 on the common organisation of the markets
in fishery and aquaculture products (2) does not foresee any action regarding a temporary scheme of
compensatory indemnities for preserved products. However, article 14.1. b) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2792 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements regarding Community
structural assistance in the fisheries sector (3) enables Member States to take measures to promote new
market outlets for fishery products, including promotion campaigns.

(1) OJ C 325, 12.11.1999.
(2) OJ L 17, 21.1.2000.
(3) OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3463/01

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) and Guido Podestà (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Air safety checks

(4 January 2002)

The collision at Milan’s Linate airport on 8 October 2001 between an SAS MD-87, which was about to
take off, and a private plane (a German Cessna), which was on a side runway, killed 118 people and
caused great alarm worldwide.

After the impact the Scandinavian airliner crashed into the hangar which houses the baggage handling
centre, cutting it in half. This started a fire involving both the wreck of the aircraft and the hangar.

The mistake and faulty information seem to have been caused not only by the fog, but also the ground
radar, which had not been working since November 1999 and therefore contributed substantially to the
human error.

Although the SMGCS (Surface Movement Ground Control System) at Linate was considered antiquated and
it had been decided to replace it two years before, it was actually never replaced.

Such inefficiencies happen not only at Milan, but also a large number of other airports in Europe.