WRITTEN QUESTION P-0047/02 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. National markings on vehicle number plates.
Date: 2002-01-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, freedom of movement, motor vehicle, police, vehicle registration

C 172 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Given the above, would the Commission state:

(cid:20) whether these two pieces of legislation differ from one another, and if so, in what way?

(cid:20) what changes Italy would need to make to Law No 97 of 13 December 1994 in order for it to be

acceptable to the Community authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2002)

In its judgement in the Pistre case of 07.5.1997 (joined cases C-321/94 and C-324/94), the Court of Justice
stated that French point of law at issue in this case, namely that the use of the designation ‘montagne’ be
restricted exclusively to products manufactured within France from raw materials of French origin,
constituted an infringement of Article 28 of the EC treaty. The Court of Justice upheld the de jure and de
facto entitlement of other Member States to use this designation for all their agricultural products and food
that meet the pre-defined quality standards.

To comply with this judgment, the French authorities notified the Commission, under the procedure
instituted by Directive 98/34/EC (1), of their intention to issue a draft decree that would allow all
Community products located in a mountain area as defined in Article 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No
1257/1999 (2) to use the designation ‘montagne’. However, since the first draft of this decree established a
prior authorisation procedure that in practice proved to be unworkable for products originating from
other Member States, the French authorities, in response to formal objections raised by the Commission,
amended Article 1 of the decree so as to restrict this authorisation procedure exclusively to products
originating in France. The definitive version of the decree was the one that was issued on 15.12.2000, as
referred to by the Honourable Member. The Italian authorities, for their part, had passed legislation under
which the designation ‘Italian mountain product’ would apply solely to products originating in Italian
mountain areas and benefiting from a protected designation of origin or a protected geographical
indication within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 (3).

The Commission however was of the opinion that the desire to provide protection for the products in
question could not justify the unilateral creation of such a narrowly restricted designation. If, as seems
highly unlikely, the Italian authorities had also requested that the designation ‘Italian mountain product’ be
registered under Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, the restrictive provisions of that Regulation’s Article 2 (cid:20)
which require a direct link between the quality or the characteristics of a product and its specific
geographical origin (cid:20) could not in any event have applied to different categories of products which,
moreover, originate from a loosely defined geographical area. This much was pointed out by the Court of
Justice in paragraphs 35 and following of the grounds to its judgment in the Pistre case (see above),
applicable mutatis mutandis.

(1) Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for

the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (cid:20) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (cid:20) OJ L 160,
26.6.1999.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical

indications and

designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (cid:20) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2002/C 172 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0047/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: National markings on vehicle number plates

(16 January 2002)

The new EU-format number plate is meeting resistance from some of the inhabitants of Catalonia and the
Basque Country, who refuse to have the State symbol
imposed on them. Several cultural
movements in these countries have produced stickers on which the E or the F is replaced by CAT
(Catalunya) or EUS (Euskadi).

(E or F)

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/133

incidents have occurred at the Franco-Spanish border in Perthus. Drivers of vehicles
A number of
registered in France but displaying the CAT sticker on their number plates have been ordered to remove it
by the Spanish police. Those refusing to do so have either been obliged to spend long hours in detention
or have been advised to turn back or be detained. This is equivalent to being refused entry.

Does the Commission consider such measures taken by the police to be compatible with the free
movement of goods and persons between the Member States (cid:20) a freedom which is enshrined in the
Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

A Member State is authorised to require that every motor vehicle registered in another Member State and
circulating in its territory display a distinguishing sign of the State of registration, pursuant to two
equivalent provisions: the 1968 Convention on Road Traffic (1) (sign in an ellipse which is separate from
the registration plate) and the Community legislation (2) (sign on the extreme left of the registration plate
together with a representation of the European flag). In the latter case, the distinguishing sign is an integral
part of the vehicle’s registration plate.

The police authorities of a Member State may legitimately ask for the entire registration plate to be visible
and, in particular, for the distinguishing sign of the State of registration not to be obscured.

(1) Convention drawn up in Vienna on 8 November 1968 under the auspices of the United Nations Economic

Commission for Europe (Article 37 and Annex 3).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2411/98 of 3 November 1998 on the recognition in intra-Community traffic of the
distinguishing sign of the Member State in which motor vehicles and their trailers are registered (OJ L 299,
10.11.1998).

(2002/C 172 E/137)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0048/02

by Jens Okking (EDD) to the Commission

(24 January 2002)

Subject: Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC)

I have received several
Primate Research Centre (BPRC), which receives EU support.

letters from citizens in Denmark voicing concern over the Dutch Biomedical

The Centre houses 1 500 primates in shocking and disgraceful conditions. Many of the monkeys are totally
isolated in steel cages with no opportunity of displaying natural behaviour and in conditions that would
not even be offered a monkey in a zoo.

Is the Commission aware of conditions at the Centre and can it explain how the EU gives money to
ECVAM (European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (to animal experiments)) with one
hand and, with the other, provides support for a major centre for experiments on animals?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2002)

The Biomedical Primate Research Centre (BPRC) in Rijswijk, the Netherlands, is participating in several
three-year research projects under the Fifth Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development (1998-2002). These projects cover research areas such as vaccine and drug development for
human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), tuberculosis, malaria and hepatitis C. This research requires the use
of animals with an immune system similar to humans. Unfortunately, at the moment, no realistic
alternatives with similar predictive values exist other than non-human primates.