WRITTEN QUESTION E-3919/02 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. European satellite agency.
Date: 2003-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU office or agency, EU programme, satellite navigation, seat of institution

C 192 E/146

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Since management of Community external aid has been reformed this problem is being constantly
monitored and an action programme has been drawn up with quantifiable objectives to reduce the volume
of payments to be made and to close accounts for projects which still have outstanding commitment
appropriations. As a result of the measures taken and efforts by Commission departments the rate of
payments is improving and outstanding balances are constantly being reduced.

(1)

It is impossible to make the same breakdown for 1995 as changes in the titles of certain budget headings and
changes made at the time to the computerised system make it very difficult to compare data. Consequently data has
been included solely for budget headings B7-310 (financial and technical cooperation) and B7-311 (economic
cooperation).

(2003/C 192 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3919/02

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: European satellite agency

At a meeting between the President of the Lazio Region, Francesco Storace, and the President of the
Commission, Romano Prodi, in Brussels a few days Rome was once again put forward as a candidate for
the seat of the European satellite agency.

Mr Prodi stressed that the criterion of unanimity risked paralysing the process of choosing the location of
agencies,
including the food and satellite agencies, and emphasised that despite the complexity of the
situation the Commission would make every endeavour to reach a decision.

Although these statements were very general and wide-ranging they reveal some sort of commitment on
the part of the Commission and suggest that the issue is on the way to being settled.

However, this conclusion is not confirmed by the answer to Question P-1940/02 (1) of 26 June 2002,
given by Mrs Palacio on behalf of the Commission. To the questions concerning the desirability of making
Rome the seat of the future satellite agency Mrs Palacio replied ‘no decision has been taken as to the
possible setting-up of a European multimodal satellite navigation agency. Consequently,
its location,
resources and the number of people which it would employ are of course unknown.’

In view of this, can the Commission say:

1. how the Galileo programme will be developed;

2. how the two contradictory statements are to be interpreted;

3. what the Commission’s position is on the subject?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 249.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

During its development phase, which will last until 2005, the Galileo satellite radionavigation programme
will be run by the Galileo Joint Undertaking, whose statutes, adopted by the Council in May 2002, locate
its seat in Brussels.

Once the joint undertaking is dissolved, the private entity holding the Galileo concession will take over
responsibility for the system’s deployment and operational phases. It will be for that entity to decide,
according to its own criteria (efficiency, cost, etc.) where to set up its company head office and operations
centre(s).

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.