WRITTEN QUESTION E-3788/02 by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council. Labelling in French of consumer products sold in France.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, consumer goods, consumer information, foodstuff, labelling, multilingualism

C 222 E/106

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council has been informed that the printing of the certificates provided for in Article 2 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 of 20 December 2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification
scheme for the international trade in rough diamonds was finalised on 20 January 2003.

As regards the implementation of the system and in accordance with its forecasts, the Council would ask
the Honourable Member to refer to Council Regulation (EC) No 254/2003 of 11 February 2003 amending
the
Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002 implementing the Kimberley Process certification scheme for
international
trade in rough diamonds, as also to Commission Regulation (EC) No 257/2003 of
11 February 2003 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2368/2002.

(2003/C 222 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/02

by Johannes Swoboda (PSE) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Language discrimination in advertisements for vacant posts at European level

Is it the Commission’s view that the wording ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’ in advertisements

1.
for vacant posts with European organisations is discriminatory?

If not, how does the Commission reconcile the principle of non-discrimination with the criterion that

2.
applicants must have ‘English mother tongue or equivalent’?

3.

If so, what steps will the Commission take to put an end to this discriminatory procedure?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The EC Treaty and the Staff Regulations of the officials of EU Institutions prohibit any discrimination on
the basis of nationality and, naturally, the Commission respects the provisions of the Treaty and the
Regulations in full.

Clearly, a specific language requirement in the publication of a post may have the effect of discriminating
against nationals of other Member States. However, such differenciation could be objectively justified, for
instance by the nature of a specific post and the precise functions to be performed.
In particular,
appointments to translators and interpreters posts necessitate a depth of knowledge of specific languages,
depending on the needs of the Institution.

In order to judge whether the inclusion of a language requirement in a publication of a particular post
could be considered to be discriminatory it is therefore necessary to obtain more information about the
post in question. If the Honourable Member would be kind enough to provide me with details of the
advertisement/s to which he is referring in his question, I will ensure that the material receives thorough
attention in order to establish whether unwarranted discrimination is evident in this case.

(2003/C 222 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3788/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Council

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Labelling in French of consumer products sold in France

The Law of 4 August 1994 relative to the use of the French language made it obligatory for French to be
used in ‘all documents intended to inform the user or consumer: labels, leaflets, catalogues, brochures and
other information documents, etc.’.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/107

On 20 March 2000, a European directive consolidating the Directive of 18 December 1978 made it clear
that national provisions which required a specific language to be used in the labelling of foodstuffs,
without allowing for the possibility for another language to be used, were contrary to European law.

As a result of a ruling by the Court of Justice on 12 September 2000 on a case referred to it by the Lyons
Court of Appeal, the European Commission notified France that it had two months in which to comply
with this legislation.

Following this, the French Government issued Decree No 2002-1025 of 1 August 2002, which amended
Article R. 112-8 of the Code de la Consommation to the effect that although foodstuffs still had to be
labelled in French, they could also (new subparagraph 2) be labelled in one or more other languages.

Does the Council consider this amendment to be sufficient vis-à-vis the European legislation referred to
above?

In other words, does a Member State still have a legitimate right to require that foodstuffs sold within its
borders are labelled, as a minimum, in its national language?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Question put by the Honourable Member comes within the remit of the European Commission,
which,
is responsible for ensuring that Community
Directives, and therefore Directive 2000/13/EC referred to in this Question, are applied.

in accordance with Article 211 of

the Treaty,

The Council therefore suggests that the Honourable Member address this Question to the European
Commission.

(2003/C 222 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3789/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Council

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Antonio Russo affair

the murder of

Mr G.G. has provided a reconstruction of
the Italian journalist Antonio Russo,
correspondent of the Italian radio station ‘Radio Radicale’, which occurred on 16 October 2000 in Tbilisi,
Georgia (date and place probable but not certain). In his written statement, Mr G.G. asserts that:
‘The
ambush was organised and carried out by FSB staff, all of them from the Caucasian republics (CIS and
autonomous republics),
in collusion with a number of members of prominent mafia-type families of
Chechen, Georgian, Azeri and Armenian stock’. They carried out the killing at the instigation of ‘agents
provocateurs’ working for Russia. The Russian citizen Fedo, Sergijejevic Petov, who not only enjoys the
trust of Dr Arlacchi but has also, thanks to his protection, been able to establish a network of contacts in
order to engage in a flourishing money laundering trade with the proceeds of illicit activities conducted
mainly in the CIS, paid into Austrian and Hungarian, as well as Croatian and Greek, bank accounts, is not
totally unrelated to this decision. This statement will be forwarded as soon as possible to the Georgian and
Italian authorities currently investigating the murder of Antonio Russo. Moreover, in its reply to Question
P-2110/01 (1), the Council stated that ‘representatives of EU Member States in Tbilisi, as well as the
Commission Delegation there, maintain a constant watch on events’ connected to the death of Antonio
Russo.

What measures does the Council intend to take to check the reliability of Mr G.G.’s reconstruction of the
killing of Antonio Russo? What information does the Council have regarding investigations into the
Antonio Russo affair? What action has the Council taken since its reply of 21 October 2001 and what
further action does it intend to take, including measures in cooperation with the Georgian, French and
Italian authorities, to elucidate the circumstances in which Antonio Russo was murdered?

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 109.