WRITTEN QUESTION P-3386/02 by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission. Vietnam.
Date: 2002-11-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Viet Nam, cooperation agreement (EU), ethnic group, government violence, protection of minorities, right to justice

C 11 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Can the Commission also confirm that, since 2000, the name ‘feta’ may be used within the European
3.
Union only to designate a white cheese of Greek origin, even though that Greek cheese involves a dairy
technique of Danish origin and, furthermore, the designation has been taken from the Bulgarian cheese
now known by the same name precisely because of the emergence of Greek trade in it?

4. What steps are being taken to ensure that the Bulgarian plan, following accession in 2007, to
promote exports of that cheese is not needlessly hampered by making it impossible to use the name under
which the cheese has become well known, so that the product can therefore only be sold to the consumer
under a name unknown to other Europeans? Will the use of the name ‘Bulgarian feta’ be made possible?

5.
If the answer to question 4 is negative, in what other way will Bulgaria be compensated for the fact
that the cheese to be exported will become less widely known because of a decision which probably would
not have been taken if Bulgaria were already a member of the EU?

Source: 14 November 2002 edition of the Dutch newspaper ‘Het Nederlandse Dagblad’

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(17 January 2003)

The Commission is aware that Balkans and South-East Mediterranean regions produce white cheese whose
manufacturing process is very similar to the one used for Feta. Bulgaria as well as other candidate
countries like Romania, Cyprus and Turkey is concerned.

Feta was registered as a protected designation of origin (PDO) for Greece by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 (1). The name Feta (by itself or as part of a compound name) may now
only be used for cheese originating in the specified geographical area in Greece and complying with the
product specification. However, a five-year transitional period (starting from 15 October 2002) is possible
under Article 13(2) of Regulation 2081/92 (2) during which the name Feta may continue to be used for
cheese not complying with the specification. In any case, it would not be consistent with Community law
to market Bulgarian cheese as ‘Feta’ or ‘Bulgarian Feta’ as from 15 October 2007.

The imports of Feta-like cheese from candidate countries into the Union are very low in terms of volume.
In 2001, only 40,4 tonnes have been exported to the Union from the candidate countries, Bulgaria being
the biggest exporter with a quantity of 11,8 tonnes. In view of the fact that the EU currently consumes
approximately 150 000 tons per year of this product, the 40,4 tons represent only 0,027 % of EU
consumption of this product. Whilst there is concrete information available on the volume of Feta-like
cheese exported from Bulgaria to the Union, there are no precise details available as to whether the name
of Feta is used to denominate this cheese. Under these circumstances the impact on Bulgarian producers of
Feta-like cheese of the registration of Feta as a PDO is considered as being negligible.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC)

No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’, OJ L 277, 15.10.2002.

(2) 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, OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2004/C 11 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3386/02

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Vietnam

According to various information sources three Montagnards, arrested by the Vietnamese security forces
after the peaceful demonstrations of February 2001, were executed by lethal injection and without any

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/53

form of trial in Buon Ma Thuot prison in Vietnam on 29 October 2002. The execution of Y-Suon Mlo,
from the village of Buon Kuang, Y-Het Nie Kdam, from the village of Buon Ea Tieo, and Y-Wan Ayun,
from the village of Buon Gram, was confirmed by the Montagnard Foundation Inc., an organisation which
promotes, at international level, protection of the rights of the indigenous Montagnard population, and by
Agence France Presse. The killings follow other extra-judicial executions which, according to worrying
reports, have taken place and are allegedly still taking place in other Vietnamese prisons. The Vietnamese
authorities, contrary to the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 (UN
Doc. CCPR/C/SR.2031) are denying access to independent observers who are trying to verify respect for
human rights in the Central Highlands. What steps will the Commission take to stop the Vietnamese
authorities’ serious violations of human rights designed to intimidate the whole Montagnard ethnic
minority? What steps will the Commission take to back the UN Human Rights Committee’s demands of
27 July 2002?

Does the Commission not consider that Vietnam’s constant violations of human rights and failure to
comply with the demands made by the UN Human Rights Committee on 27 July 2002 constitute a serious
infringement of the Cooperation Agreement signed by the European Union and Vietnam in 1995 and that
the Agreement should therefore be immediately denounced pursuant to Article 2 thereof?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-2845 (1).

The Commission has not been able to obtain any reliable confirmation of the ‘extra-judicial killings’
referred to in the present question, but is trying to follow-up on these matters through all available
channels.

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 81.

(2004/C 11 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3395/02

by Philip Bushill-Matthews (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 November 2002)

Subject: Sudan

Following the peace treaty signed in Sudan in January, which hopefully will end the conflict which has
claimed over a million lives, what action is the EU taking in order to promote the peace process?
Specifically, has the EU considered suspending trade in Sudanese oil until the just, enduring peace deal is
in place?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2002)

The Union’s position on relations with Sudan beyond the Machakos peace talks is based on normalisation
of relations and resumption of co-operation tied to progress in the peace process.

In line with conclusions adopted by the Council in June 2002, the Union is following a phased approach
in order to promote the peace process:

(cid:1) until a peace agreement is concluded, the Union will continue its political dialogue on the basis of the
commitments for 2002 entered into by the Government of the Sudan regarding human rights,
democracy and rule of law with a particular focus on the conclusion of a peace agreement.