WRITTEN QUESTION P-0027/03 by Charles Pasqua (UEN) to the Commission. Protection of the name yoghurt.
Date: 2003-01-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Spain, approximation of laws, consumer information, consumer protection, food standard, foodstuff, labelling, product designation, yoghourt

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/147

During the second half of 2003, the Commission will be sending the Council and Parliament a proposal
for the establishment of a public structure, whose seat has of course yet to be determined, to be the
granting authority in respect of the concession holder.

In view of the foregoing, and given that no proposal or decision exists regarding the creation of a
multimodal satellite navigation centre, the statements by the Commission President and the answer by the
Commission Vice-President responsible for transport and energy, to which the Honourable Member refers,
are in no way contradictory.

(2003/C 192 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0027/03

by Charles Pasqua (UEN) to the Commission

(13 January 2003)

Subject: Protection of the name ‘yoghurt’

to the European Court of

As a sequel
the
Justice’s judgment
Commission interpretative communication of 15 October 1991 (1) on the names under which foodstuffs
are sold indicated that it was a characteristic of yoghurt to contain ‘live lactic bacteria in large quantities’.
Yoghurt is therefore a product whose specific characteristics are recognised by the European authorities.

in the case involving Smanor S.A.,

The communication also specified that using the word ‘yoghurt’ for a product could mislead consumers as
to the real nature of that product.

The version of the Codex alimentarius currently under adoption specifies that, as a general rule, the name
yoghurt should only be applied to products that contain live cultures.

Directive 2000/13/EC (2) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs requires Member States to take the necessary measures to
safeguard consumers against the risk of fraud.

In view of the definitions established by the various authorities, is it right for a Member State such as Spain
to amend its legislation to extend the use of the name ‘yoghurt’ to products that no longer contain live
cultures in any significant quantities?

In the light of Community principles governing consumer protection, is a Member State such as Spain
entitled to amend its rules on the name ‘yoghurt’, which previously could only be used for products
containing live cultures, and to extend the use of this name to products whose live cultures have been
destroyed?

What measures will the Commission take to halt the implementation by Spain of its new legislation on the
name ‘yoghurt’?

(1) OJ C 270/2.
(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2003)

in the framework of

The purpose of the Commission’s interpretative Communication cited by the Honourable Member is to
define,
the conditions where a Member State can
legitimately insist that a name under which a product is sold in its territory be different from the product
name used in the countries of production in order to protect the consumers against risks of confusion
between different products.

free circulation of goods,

The condition is that the product is so different as far as its composition or manufacture is concerned,
from goods generally known under this name in the Community, that it cannot be considered as
belonging to the same category of goods. In this context, the notion of characteristic of a product is
important.

C 192 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In fact, neither the European Court of Justice, nor the Commission (in its interpretative Communication)
have given a definition of yoghurt. In the Smanor judgement, the European Court of Justice determines
cases where it is necessary to modify a product name to protect consumers against the risk of confusion
between different products. In this respect, the Court noted that according to the Codex Alimentarius, the
characteristic feature of the product marketed as yoghurt is the presence of specific viable lactic acid
bacteria in abundant quantities.

The Court pointed out that there are no common or harmonised rules relating to the manufacture or the
marketing of yoghurt, with the exception of Commission Directive 93/102/EEC of 16 November 1993
amending Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer (1).

In the absence of Community legislation, a Member State has the right to decide rules such as the use of
the name ‘yoghurt’ and to which product these rules shall apply.

In the framework of Directive 98/34/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying
down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (2),
the Commission received the draft Spanish legislation mentioned by the Honourable Member. This text
allows certain products to be marketed under the denomination of ‘Yoghurt pasteurised after fermentation’.
The Commission did not express objection against this draft Regulation. In conformity with the procedure
laid down in Directive 98/34/EC the Spanish authorities are legally authorised since 26 January 2003 to
adopt their legislation.

Notwithstanding, the Commission received several complaints concerning the Spanish legislation, based
particularly on Directive 2000/13/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs. They are currently examining these complaints and the legal situation in the Member States as
regards the denomination of yoghurt.

(1) OJ L 291, 25.11.1993.
(2) OJ L 204, 21.7.1998.

(2003/C 192 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0030/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Greek Public Power Corporation and construction of new electricity generation plants

In its reply to my written question P-1459/02 (1) the Commission indicated that it required the full
accounting unbundling of all integrated electricity undertakings in the EU with separate accounts being
drawn up for generation transmission and distribution activities. In reply to my subsequent oral question
(H-0794/02) (2), the Commission referred to financial difficulties facing the seven consortia of independent
private companies regarding the construction of new electricity generation plants with a total capacity of
2000 MW. It also indicates that an additional capacity of 500 to 600 MW is estimated to be required by
the year 2005 to solve the problem of security of energy supply in Greece.

Has the Greek Public Power Corporation submitted separate accounts in respect of its different

1.
activities?

2. What is the reason for the financial difficulties facing the consortia of independent private companies
and, more specifically, do these difficulties relate to the price of the fuel needed to operate the seven new
energy supply plants?

Is it possible that Greece will, over the coming years, encounter problems regarding security of
3.
energy supply given that, to date, it has not been possible to secure a capacity of 2 000 MW, let alone an
additional 500 to 600 MW?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 209.
(2) Written reply of 17.12.2002.