WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/03 by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission. Produce of regional nature parks brand.
Date: 2003-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, designation of origin, foodstuff, product designation, product quality, trade mark

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/71

(2004/C 58 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1476/03

by Michel Raymond (EDD) to the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Subject:

‘Produce of regional nature parks’ brand

The Ministry for Ecology and Sustainable Development in France plans to review the brand name ‘Produce
of …. Nature Park’. The use of this label to add value to agri-food products significantly improves their
recognition and increases employment and income.

Which European regulation could be used as the basis for continuing the use of a distinctive brand that
helps to add value to these products?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2003)

The Commission welcomes initiatives adding value to agri-food products. Indeed such initiatives are seen
as an important element to sustain the European multifunctional model of agriculture. For these reasons
the Commission, in its recent proposal to reform the Common Agriculture Policy (1), introduced specific
measures to support farmers participating in quality production schemes.

Currently only few labels benefit
framework of:

from Community recognition, namely those granted within the

(cid:1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992, on the protection of geographical indications

and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2),

(cid:1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of 14 July 1992, on certificates of specific character for

agricultural products and foodstuffs (1),

(cid:1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 July 1991, on organic production of agricultural

products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (3),

(cid:1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1607/2000 of 24 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for

implementing in particular the Title relating to quality wine produced in specified regions (4).

At this stage and with the limited information available, the Commission is not in a position to give a
more conclusive answer. Without information on the exact denomination proposed to figure on the label,
the nature of the protection, the characteristics and types of products and the rightholders it is difficult to
identify which legal framework would apply.

However, in the Commission’s view at least the general legal framework regulating trade, labelling and
state aid rules should be taken into consideration at an early stage of designing new initiatives.

In relation to this reference is made in particular to:

(cid:1) Community guidelines for State aid for advertising of products listed in Annex I to the EC Treaty and

of certain non-Annex I products (5),

(cid:1) Article 28 of the EC Treaty, including the recent interpretation of the Court of Justice on case C-6/02,

C 58 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(cid:1) Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States

relating to trade marks (6),

(cid:1) 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 (7).

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 198, 22.7.1991.
(4) OJ L 185, 25.7.2000.
(5) OJ C 252, 12.9.2001.
(6) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.
(7) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2004/C 58 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1485/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Discrimination in building society/bank share conversion

Is the Commission aware that some UK banks/building societies appear to be using internal
1.
administrative rules to deny their investors who reside in certain Member States the same benefits as those
investors resident in other Member States, regarding allocation of shares when a building society is
converted to a plc? In particular, the Bradford and Bingley Building Society in the UK has denied one of its
investors a share allocation during the Building Society’s conversion into a plc because the investor lived in
Austria, whereas investors who live in Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Ireland, Spain and the Netherlands
have been allocated these shares.

2.

Does the Commission agree that this discrimination is incompatible with the Treaty?

3. What action will the Commission take to rectify the situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission recently received a complaint concerning possible discriminatory treatment at the time of
the process of demutualization of an entity in the United Kingdom. To reply to this complaint, the
Commission requested the assistance of the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority (FSA). According
to the FSA, in the process of demutualization of that entity, its members were allotted shares in the new
public limited company as compensation for giving up their membership rights, except for those members
who were resident in countries other than the United Kingdom and who receive cash instead of shares.
The process of demutualization was governed by the company’s rules of constitution;
it was agreed
between its members; and it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the FSA. This exception for non-United
Kingdom residents was apparently made with a view to the perceived extra expense involved in issuing
shares to non-United Kingdom residents and the information about this envisaged exception was made
available to all members prior to the above mentioned agreements.

In that case, the Commission considered that neither article 12 of the EC Treaty nor the Community case
law offered any support to pursue the matter further. The Commission can only start an infringement
procedure on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty against a Member Sate if that Member State has
failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty. In this case, the issue at stake concerns rights granted
amongst private parties and falls, in the Commission’s opinion, within the competence of the British
authorities and courts.