WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/02 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission. European Commission consultation document on the new approach directives.
Date: 2002-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to EU information, dissemination of EU information, harmonisation of standards, standardisation

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/239

(2002/C 205 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2002)

Subject: Trademark rights

Following the ruling of the European Court of Justice to uphold the right of trademark owners to
determine the conditions of sale of their products within the EU in the case Tesco v. Levi Strauss (cases
C-414/99, C-415/99 and C-416/99), will the Commission bring forward any revision to existing legislation
in order to promote the rights of consumers to buy products at equitable prices in the internal market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

The Commission is very conscious of the need to strike the right balance between the economic interests
of consumers and those of trademark holders.

However, the recent judgement of the European Court of Justice in the case Tesco v. Levi Strauss, which
with regard to the principle of exhaustion confirms the earlier jurisprudence of the Court, has not given
cause for the Commission to reconsider its decision not to table a proposal for a change of the exhaustion
regime. Nevertheless, the Commission will continue to follow closely the issue of exhaustion, and action
will certainly be taken should new and important developments take place which would justify
reconsideration of the matter.

(2002/C 205 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0965/02

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: European Commission consultation document on the new approach directives

The internet-based feedback for the Consultation Document prepared by the Directorate-General
Enterprise concerning the functioning of
questionnaire at: http://europa.eu.int/BFM/consultation/index.cfm?fuseaction=form&id_form=4

for
the New Approach directives is only available through a

Why isn’t there the possibility for an internet-based feedback outside the restrictive framework of the
questionnaire?

Why is the name of the person responsible for the consultation document not available on the website?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

The ‘Consultation Document on the Review of the New Approach’ was prepared by the Enterprise
Directorate General as part of the preparation of a planned Communication from the Commission on the
functioning of the New Approach directives. The purpose of the consultation was to elicit a broad range of
assessment and feedback from stakeholders so that more detailed proposals could be elaborated and put
forward in the eventual Communication.

C 205 E/240

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

When considering the most efficient way of consulting as widely as possible for the Review of the New
Approach, it was thought that an internet-based consultation was preferable to a survey restricted to the
known stakeholders, in terms of reaching a wider range of potential contributors. In further considering
the best choice of format for such a consultation, it was decided that the interactive tool called ‘Interactive
Policy Making’, already available within the Commission, would best suit the purposes of the consultation.
The advantages of this tool were evaluated both in terms of the constraints on time and in the quicker
processing of results than would be possible under a less structured consultation.

The consultation document itself is the result of accrued experience in the operation of the New Approach
at Member State and Community level, and of extensive discussions with Member States over a period of
time. This continuity, coupled with the inevitable changes in personnel over such a period, mean that the
project involves teamwork rather than the result of the work of any one individual. A functional mailbox
address was available on the consultation page, to facilitate any queries.

(2002/C 205 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0976/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: French ban on imports of British beef

In view of the European Court of Justice ruling in September 2001 that France has ‘failed to fulfil its
Community obligations’ by continuing its ban on imports of British beef, and given the commercial losses
being sustained by British producers as a result of this unilateral action, would the Commission please
inform Members:

D What action it has taken thus far to lift the ban, given the ruling of the Court of Justice was given

some six months ago?

D What reparation will be made to British beef producers in order to compensate for the illegal actions

of the French?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The judgement of the European Court of Justice in case C-1/00 Commission v French Republic was dated
13 December 2001.

Soon after the judgement, the Commission requested France to communicate details of the actions it
would be taking to ensure compliance. In the absence of a satisfactory reply, a letter of formal notice
under Article 228(2) of the EC Treaty was sent to the French government on 21 March 2002.

The infringement procedure now opened by the Commission could lead, if pursued to its conclusion, to
the Court of Justice awarding a lump sum or penalty payment against the French government. There is,
however, no provision under Article 228(2) for compensation of individuals.

In respect of the case law of the court concerning a Member State’s obligations to make good the damage
caused to individuals by a breach of Community law for which it is responsible, the Honourable Member
is referred to the Commission’s answer to written question E-3625/01 of Mr Huhne (1).

(1)

JO C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 99.