WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/02 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU accession to the IATTC.
Date: 2002-03-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: common fisheries policy, fishing industry, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, world organisation

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/211

I am forwarding to the Commission a letter from the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs and Generations
which indicates that an easily understood language in Austria is German, and that labelling in Austria must
therefore be in German.

In my opinion, the requirement to label foodstuffs in the national language constitutes discrimination
against the Italian discounter.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the requirement for food to be labelled in the national
language is compatible with EU law? If it is not, what labelling requirements must the Italian discounter
comply with? (Where must the labelling be affixed? In which language must it appear? What are the legal
provisions governing compulsory labelling in the European Union?)

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Directive 2000/13/EC (1)
labelling particulars of foodstuffs must appear.

lays down,

in Article 16, the rules applicable to the language in which the

Basically, these provisions stipulate that labelling particulars must appear in a language that is easily
understood by consumers, and allow the Member State in which the product concerned is marketed to
stipulate that, on its territory, these labelling particulars must be provided at least in a given language from
among the official languages of the Community.

The obligation for labelling particulars to appear at least in German on Austrian territory therefore seems
to be fully in keeping with the above-mentioned provisions, which are based on the requirement to inform
and protect consumers.

(1) Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of

the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ L 109, 6.5.2000).

(2002/C 205 E/231)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0753/02

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: EU accession to the IATTC

(19 March 2002)

At its 63rd meeting held in Guayaquil (Ecuador) from 8 to 10 June 1999 the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission noted the interest expressed by the EU in becoming a party to the Convention for the
Establishment of an Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and, with a view to making this possible,
reached agreement on a protocol amending the 1949 convention. The protocol’s entry into force, which
will enable the EU to become a party to the convention, is subject to ratification by all the parties to the
convention, who expressed a willingness to take the necessary steps to ensure that the internal ratification
procedures were completed as soon as possible.

To date, only seven (Ecuador, United States, Nicaragua, Mexico, Panama, France and Vanuatu) of the twelve
contracting parties have signed the protocol, and none of them have ratified it.

This situation, which is preventing the EU from acceding to the convention, is severely damaging the
interests of the Community tuna fishing fleet in the eastern Pacific, given that it is unable to operate freely
> as it has a right to do > in the area, and is being discriminated against in that it is obliged to comply
with all IATTC resolutions without being able to discuss or object to them.

Can the Commission provide details of the factors and countries that are continuing to prevent the EU
from acceding to the convention, despite the fact that its application dates back to 8 June 1999?

What steps has it taken or does it intend to take to speed up the EU’s accession to the convention?

C 205 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission very much shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the
unsatisfactory progress registered to date in relation to the Community’s accession to the Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). Community tuna vessels have been operating for many years now in
the Pacific area under the competence of this Regional Fisheries Organisation (RFO). Community vessels
have been fully respecting all the conservation measures put in place by the RFO, even though the
Community does not have the full benefits of membership, and notably, the right to participate in the
decision-making of the organisation.

Nearly three years have elapsed since IATTC Parties agreed, through the 1999 Guayaquil Protocol, to
permit the Community to adhere to the organisation. However, although a number of Parties have signed
the Protocol, the ratification procedures have been very slow. These Parties invoke the difficult and slow
internal legislation processes within their countries, in order to explain their lack of ratification of the
Protocol.

In official meetings of this Organisation, the Commission has constantly raised this issue, underlining that
IATTC Parties should accelerate their ratification procedures, in order that the Community can exercise
fully its rights and responsibilities as a Party, and not as an observer, to IATTC. The Commission, in
addition to the above mentioned official interventions during the IATTC meetings, has also sent a ‘Note
Verbale’ in late December 2001 to all the IATTC Parties requesting information on the state of progress of
their internal ratification procedures, and calling on them to finalise quickly these processes.

(2002/C 205 E/232)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0759/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 March 2002)

Subject: One-net rule

I have received information from several sources that, instead of moving to other fishing grounds, Danish
and Dutch fishing vessels are compensating for low catches by fishing with two or even four nets at once.
Such action would totally contradict efforts towards sustainable fisheries and the preservation of the
biomass, since the areas concerned are virtually ransacked by this method. This is also directly related to
the issue of the use of by-catches.

1.

2.

Is the Commission aware of this practice?

Is this fishing method compatible with the ‘one-net rule’?

If this method is not compatible with European rules, what steps will the Commission take to deal

3.
with it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

In several fisheries more than one net is used at the same time by the fishing vessel. One example is
fishing with beam trawls
typically use two nets
simultaneously, one on each side of the vessel. Another example is fishing for nephrops or flatfish with
twin (or triple or more) otter trawl, where the vessels use a gear consisting of two or more trawls linked
together.

(double-rigged beam trawl), where the vessels