WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Obstacles to the export of Bulgarian white salted cheese containing Lactobacillus bulgaricus because the designation feta is protected within the EU.
Date: 2002-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Greece, accession to the European Union, cheese, designation of origin, trade restriction

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/51

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Community’s Common Customs Tariff (CCT) (1) includes two subheadings for video cameras (other
than still-image video cameras and digital cameras): one of the subheadings (CN code 8525 40 91, duty-
rate 4,9 %) concerns cameras which are ‘only able to record sound and images taken by the television
camera’, and the other (CN code 8525 40 99, duty-rate 14 %) concerns the ‘other’ types.

Video camera users have drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that, on the market, there are both
‘non-doctored’ and ‘doctored’ video cameras, urging it to revise the current situation.

It should be pointed out that, at importation, video cameras are classified according to the function they
are capable of performing, on the basis of an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the product.
Thus, the ‘doctored’ video cameras would have the necessary hardware to be able to record or reproduce
sound and images other than those taken by the television camera itself. Consequently, they are classified
under tariff subheading 8525 40 99. In 2002, an Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature (2) was
published, to clarify the situation in this respect. The practice is uniform in the whole of the Union.

The duty-rates in question are the outcome of the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (GATT) and,
then, of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations for the post-Uruguay Round Information
Technology Agreement (ITA), and reflect an equitable balance between what was given to the Union and
what it offered in terms of market access.

Many members of the World Trade Organisation, including the Community, are parties to the ITA. It is
worth stressing that most ITA participants were opposed to the inclusion of consumer electronic products
(such as digital video cameras); as a result, the ITA focused on eliminating duties on core Information
Technology (IT) products.

However, it is the Commission’s view that the current multilateral trade negotiations (the Doha Round)
should be comprehensive, covering all industrial products without a priori exceptions. In the context of
these negotiations, the Community has proposed to compress duties sharply, including for the products in
question. The outcome will depend on the modalities agreed by WTO partners in order to achieve a
balanced and satisfactory outcome of concessions.

(1) The CCT rates for 2002 are published in OJ L 279, 23.10.2001.
(2) OJ C 256, 23.10.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Obstacles to the export of Bulgarian white salted cheese containing Lactobacillus bulgaricus

because the designation ‘feta’ is protected within the EU

1.
Is the Commission aware that in Bulgaria, a candidate country, cheese and yoghurt are produced
which contain the bacterium Lactobacillus bulgaricus, also known as Bacillus bulgaricus, to which human
health promoting characteristics are ascribed?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that salted crumbly white cheese from Bulgaria that contains the
Lactobacillus bulgaricus bacterium and is very different from Greek feta cheese, which is fattier, tangier and
does not contain that bacterium, was being bought up in Bulgaria, from Greece, as long ago as before
1989 and subsequently sold as ‘Greek feta cheese’ within the EU?

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