WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/03 by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU/Chile Association Agreement.
Date: 2003-02-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Chile, alcoholic beverage, association agreement (EU), common commercial policy, designation of origin, viticulture, wine

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/183

of its Human Rights Dialogue on 5/6 March in Athens, the EU expressed, once again, its concern over the
human rights situation in general and insisted particularly on issues of concern to ethnic minorities such as
cultural rights and the freedom of expression.

Furthermore, the Commission is urging China at every possible occasion to enhance co-operation with the
United Nations’ human rights mechanisms. Some progress has been achieved in this area, given that China
has agreed to invite the United Nations’ rapporteur on religious freedom, on the right to education, the
independence of judges and lawyers and the chairperson of the working group on arbitrary detention.
Additionally, the new High Commissioner for Human Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is expected to visit
China this spring.

The EU will continue to closely monitor the Chinese government’s respect for freedom of expression and
respect for the civil and political rights of ethnic minorities, including the Uighur minority in Xinjiang, and
will continue to express concern about violations of these fundamental rights, including the on-going
crackdown in the Xinjiang-Uighur Autonomous Region. The next session of the EU-China Human Rights
dialogue will offer the first in a series of opportunities to give voice to these concerns in 2003.

(2003/C 192 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0396/03

by Hugues Martin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 February 2003)

Subject: EU/Chile Association Agreement

The European Union and Chile have just concluded an association agreement (1) which has been presented
as the most innovative and most wide-ranging agreement ever concluded with a State which has not
applied for EU membership.

As part of that association agreement, the Commission directly negotiated an agreement on wines and
spirits and, in particular, the rules governing the use of traditional expressions.

Although, in overall terms, the agreement on wines is satisfactory, the French delegation had drawn the
Commission’s attention to the use by the Chileans, in French, of the traditional expressions ‘Chateau’,
‘grand cru’, ‘cru bourgeois’ and ‘clos’, which might mislead consumers as to the real origin of the wine and
thus give rise to unfair competition. The Commission would appear to have disregarded this fact during
the negotiations.

Above all, there is no proof of the prior right in law of Chilean wine-growers to use these terms: although
current Chilean law acknowledges the existence of complementary quality mentions, it lays down neither
definitions nor a list of such mentions.

1. Why did the European Commission disregard the remarks made by the French delegation concerning
this precise matter?

2.
Can the European Commission provide proof that, prior to the conclusion of the agreement, Chilean
national law recognised the expressions ‘Chateau’, ‘grand cru’, ‘cru bourgeois’ and ‘clos’, and is it aware that
the lack of such proof would give rise to a problem concerning the prior right in law to use such
expressions?

3.
If that prior right in law is established, would the European Commission be prepared to place this
item on the agenda for the first meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee with a view to laying down
‘the practical conditions of use to make a distinction between the homonymous traditional expressions and
complimentary quality mentions referred to in paragraph 5, bearing in mind the need to treat
the
producers concerned fairly and to ensure that consumers are not misled’ (Article 8(6) of the agreement)?

(1) OJ L 352, 30.12.2002, p. 3.

C 192 E/184

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission negotiated the Association Agreement with Chile in consultation with the 15 Member
States of the European Union … The Commission has examined all the comments and suggestions from
all Member States which were permanently very closely involved particularly in all technical aspects of the
wine agreement. The Council of Ministers has approved the provisional application of certain provisions of
the Association Agreement, including the Wine Agreement

Particular attention has been paid to the question on traditional expressions and this issue has been
addressed in conformity with the ‘guidelines on the wine and spirits for negotiations with third countries’
given by the Council to the Commission in October 2000.

It is well established under Community law that international agreements between the Community and
third countries prevail over secondary Community legislation, and thus such agreements might contain
rules that derogate from the secondary Community legislation.

Concerning the question of ‘anteriorité juridique’ mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission
would like to remind that the Labelling Regulation (1) will not be applicable until 1 August 2003.

Furthermore, the current wine legislation allows the use of traditional expressions by third countries under
certain conditions. In the particular case of Chile, the Commission has considered that the use of certain
traditional expressions mentioned in the written question, fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Wine
Agreement to treat the producers concerned fairly and to ensure that consumers are not misled.

In accordance with the Association Agreement, the Parties shall examine the evidence of some definitions
in the first meeting of the Joint Committee.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine
sector products (cid:1) OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Work opportunities for non-Greek diving teachers and diving centres run by non-Greek EU

citizens in Greece

Is the Commission aware of attempts made by Greece, by means of various regulations, to limit the work
opportunities for non-Greek diving teachers and diving centres run by non-Greek EU citizens, and is the
Commission of the opinion that this is compatible with freedom of movement in the European Union?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that boats with a maximum length of 10 metres can only be
used commercially (for diving) in Greece by non-Greeks if the company responsible for them is at least
51 % owned by a Greek citizen?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that work permits are only issued to people who have passed
a Greek-language test at a specific address and at a specified time in the spring?

Is the Commission aware that internationally awarded PADI diving teacher diplomas are not recognised,
although this is in principle possible in law?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that Greece does not recognise internationally recognised
diplomas for marine motor boat licences gained in other countries?