WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/02 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. The term sardine.
Date: 2002-09-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Dispute Settlement Body, Peru, consumer protection, food standard, international trade, labelling, preserved product, product designation, sea fish, technical barriers to trade

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/15

What action is the Commission taking to ensure that the rights of North Korean refugees and asylum-
seekers are respected, and that they have access to a fair and independent asylum procedure, as embodied
in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees? Will the Commission agree to raise the issue of
the unjust forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees at the next round of the biannual EU-China
Human Rights Dialogue?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 2002)

The human rights situation in North Korea is a major concern for the Commission. Human rights issues,
including the plight of refugees, are systematically raised by the Commission during its regular political
In June 2002 in Pyongyang, the Commission had the
contacts with the North Korean authorities.
opportunity to express to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) authorities its concerns over
the treatment of these persons once returned by China and urged the DPRK to respect the fundamental
rights of these citizens.

Since large numbers of North Koreans flee over the border to China, the Union has also urged China on
several occasions and in the context of the human rights dialogue it maintains with that country, to
respect international humanitarian norms and to grant access to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Refugees to assess the situation of North Koreans in the border area.

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation of refugees from North Korea closely and to raise
it in its contacts with the DPRK and Chinese authorities.

(2004/C 11 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2724/02

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(30 September 2002)

Subject: The term ‘sardine’

The World Trade Organisation Panel special working party has recently supported Peru against the
European Union with regard to the trade name of ‘sardines’. Within the Community, Peru may now
market the sardinops sagax under the name ‘sardine’. This fish, found off the Peruvian and Chilean coast, is
not the same as the sardina pilchardis found in the north-west Atlantic. European consumers will be
confused by this, since they will be sold as sardines a product different from what they have hitherto
known as sardines.

What steps has the Commission taken to prevent this?

What action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 2002)

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Appellate Body has published on 26 September 2002 its report
relating to the commercial name of canned sardines in the Community. In that report, the Appellate Body
confirms an earlier report of the WTO Panel ruling in favour of Peru, in the sense that Regulation (EEC)
No 2136/89 of the Council of 21 June 1989 laying down common marketing standards for preserved
sardines (1)
the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. The
aforementioned conclusion derives from the fact that the Community Regulation is not based on the
relevant international standard, i.e., the Codex Standard for canned sardines and sardine-type products (2).

is inconsistent with Article 2.4. of

According to the report of the Panel, confirmed by the Appellate Body, Article 2 of the Community
Regulation prohibits the marketing of tins of 20 species of fish, including the species Sardinops sagax,
under the name ‘sardines’, even when this name is accompanied by one of the denominations stipulated in
the Codex standard. For this reason, a contradiction exists between the Community Regulation and the

C 11 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

mentioned standard. In its conclusions, the Appellate Body recommends that the dispute settlement body
(DSB) request the Communities to bring the Regulation into conformity with its obligations under the
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement.

The Commission is disappointed with the WTO ruling, as the Commission places great importance in the
promotion of market transparency and product quality through a clear labelling of
foodstuffs. The
Commission, in particular, considers that the name under which a product is sold must be clear enough to
let the purchaser know its true nature and distinguish it from other products with which it might be
confused.

In any event, the Commission remains fully committed to its international obligations and it will actively
work towards compliance with the WTO ruling, while ensuring at the same time that the Community
marketing rules for preserved sardines and related fish species achieve a high standard of consumer
protection and avoid any possible risk of misleading. In this regard, the Commission would like to recall
that the Codex Standard provides that the name ‘sardines’ be exclusively reserved to fish of the species
Sardina Pilchardus Walbaum. The trade description of other species may include the name ‘sardine’ only if
accompanied by an appropriate qualifying term.

(1) OJ L 212, 22.7.1989.
(2) Codex STAN 94-1981, Rev 1-1985.

(2004/C 11 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2787/02

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(3 October 2002)

Subject: Sugar

How will the Commission address questions of rules of origin, safeguard measures and supply side

1.
constraints on LDC production and export capacities in the coming Economic Partnership Agreements?

2. Would the Commission provide a detailed overview of the profit margins of the European sugar
industry (cid:1) on a country-by-country basis? The overview should include an assessment of the EU sugar
industry profit margins vis-à-vis other agricultural industries.

3.
As part of the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy, can the Commission provide a
breakdown of the profit margins (both with and without subsidies) of the major crops produced under the
CAP (wheat, barley, maize, rice, sugar etc)?

4.
Can the Commission provide a listing of new products from least developed countries imported into
the EU following the introduction of the Everything But Arms Initiative, which have benefited from the
elimination of duties under the EBA Initiative?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

1.
The Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) will provide a stable and predictable framework on
rules of origin, based on the rules of origin and methods of administrative co-operation as defined in
Protocol No 1 of Annex V to the Cotonou Agreement. In the context of the EPA negotiations, the
Commission will assess any specific request for changes to the rules of origin, especially presented by the
African, Caribbean and Pacific group (ACP), aimed at improving current market access for the ACP or the
control of the scheme. The Union’s directives for the negotiations of EPAs states that the safeguard
provisions of the Cotonou Agreement (Articles 8-11 of Annex V) will apply,
in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the World Trade Organisation.