WRITTEN QUESTION P-3785/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission. Labelling in French of consumer products sold in France.
Date: 2002-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, France, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, use of languages

C 268 E/48

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

the case of a number of services of local character, will normally not affect trade between Member States
and therefore will not be subject to the Community rules (4). Furthermore, Member States are entitled to
apply the principles of proximity and self-sufficiency in the context of waste destined for disposal, so as to
be able to deal with the waste locally. However, certain waste management services provided within the
Community can have some transboundary implications (5).

Under Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty certain restrictive measures of Member States may be justified,
provided that they are necessary to fulfil a task of general economic interest and proportionate. The
European Court of Justice has confirmed in the Copenhagen case (6) that the management of particular
waste may be considered to be capable of forming the subject of a service of general economic interest,
particularly where the service is designed to deal with an environmental problem (7). The crucial question
of proportionality could only be judged after a careful examination of the case.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(2) Case C-107/98 Teckal, paragraph 50.
(3) Case C-209/98 FFAD v Kobenhavens Kommune [2000] ECR I-3743, paragraph 68.
(4) Commission Communication of 2001 entitled ‘Services of general interest in Europe’, OJ C 17, 19.1.2001, p. 32.
(5) See, in particular, Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993, on the supervision and control of shipments of

waste within, into and out of the European Community, OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.

(6) Case C-209/98 FFAD v Kobenhavens Kommune [2000] ECR I-3743.
(7) At paragraph 75 of the European Court of Justice judgement.

(2003/C 268 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3785/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Labelling in French of consumer products sold in France

On 4 August 1994 it was made compulsory under the law on the French language for French to be used
in ‘all documents intended to inform users or consumers: labels, leaflets, catalogues, brochures and other
information documents’.

On 20 March 2000 it was pointed out in an EU directive (a codification of an earlier one of 18 December
1978) that, under EU law, Member States may not insist upon the use of a particular language for the
labelling of foodstuffs without allowing other languages to be used.

In an opinion following on from a Court of Justice judgment issued on 12 September 2000 in response to
a request from the Lyons Court of Appeal for a preliminary ruling, the Commission told France that it had
a period of two months within which to comply with that aspect of EU law.

By means of Decree No 2002-1025 of 1 August 2002 the French Government duly amended
Article R.112-8 of its rules on consumer products in such a way as to retain the requirement for labelling
in French but also to authorise (in a new subparagraph 2) wording in one or more other languages.

Does the Commission consider this amendment to the rules to be sufficient from the point of view of the
above-mentioned EU law?

In other words, can a Member State retain the legitimate right to require the labels on foodstuffs sold
within its territory to be written at least in its national language?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

On 17 July 2002 the Commission decided to send a reasoned opinion inviting the French authorities to
bring French law into line with the Court of Justice judgment of 12 September 2000 in Case C-366/98
Geffroy [2000] ECR I-6579 concerning the use of a particular language for the labelling of foodstuffs.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/49

The Commission is currently examining Decree No 2002-1051 of 1 August 2002, which was sent to it by
the French authorities following the reasoned opinion.
is also working closely with the French
authorities to resolve this matter in the most appropriate manner.

It

The Commission itself as well as Community law and case law stress that the main purpose of legislation
on labelling of foodstuffs should be to inform and protect consumers.

In practice, use of the national language constitutes a natural guarantee that these imperatives are met.
However, it should not give rise to the adoption of disproportionate and unjustified measures which could
actually undermine the objective of providing consumers with information.

On the basis of case law, the Commission takes the view that national legislation should allow the use of
specific foreign words on labelling where this ensures that consumers are informed or even (cid:1) in some
cases (cid:1) better informed. Examples include the names of foreign recipes with no French equivalent. In such
cases, the name in the original language provides consumers with information more effectively than a
French expression.

Far from seeking to restrict the use of a given language, the Commission’s decision thus mirrors its
determination to promote trade in goods which so often reflect Europe’s cultural diversity and to ensure as
far as possible that consumers are properly informed about the nature of these products.

(2003/C 268 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3800/02

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: The increasingly common use of English as the only working language

The webpage on languages on the Commission’s Europa website starts as follows: ‘In a Europe which will
always be multilingual, learning languages opens doors. For individuals, it can open the door to a better
career, to the chance to live, study or work abroad, even to more enjoyable holidays. For companies,
multilingual staff can open the door to European and global markets. But there is more than this. The
their identity and their culture. So learning languages means
language a person speaks is part of
understanding other people and their way of thinking.
It means opposing racism, xenophobia and
intolerance.’

Conversely, Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Multiannual Financing Agreement between the Commission and
the candidate countries states: ‘Any communication between the Commission and the candidate country
related to this Agreement shall be in English.’

Even though English is only one of three working languages, it is being used more and more. Is it true that
English is becoming de facto, if not de jure, the only official language of the Commission?

Is it true that the Commission insists on the use of only one language in the above-mentioned Financing
Agreement?

How does the Commission intend to uphold multilingualism in the daily work of the institutions?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

The offending provision merely reflects common practice during the accession negotiations. When the ten
candidate countries join the European Union, each new Member State will use its own language to
communicate with the Commission and the other Community institutions under Regulation No 1/1958 (1).