WRITTEN QUESTION P-2136/03 by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission. Improper use of a geographical term in a foodstuff's name.
Date: 2003-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, confectionery product, consumer information, designation of origin, marketing, product designation

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/137

disasters is technically possible, the Member States have imposed compulsory insurance cover. However,
there are cases in some Member States where the risk is such that it is technically very difficult or even
impossible to cover.

Imposition of a compulsory insurance system at European level does not necessarily seem to be the
appropriate response, as it would be difficult to tailor it to the specific types of natural disaster to which
Member States are exposed. There would also be the problem of the insurability of certain risks.

As indicated in Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (2), Community assistance should complement the Member
States’ own efforts and, in line with the principle of subsidiarity, should be confined to major disasters.
This is the background against which Community action should be viewed.

Existing funding mechanisms under the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or the European Agriculture
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (cid:1) Guarantee Section (in the latter case, under rural development
in particular) may provide assistance to help prevent or dmitigate the effects of natural disasters.

One of the measures introduced by the Commission in response to the 2002 floods was the establishment
of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF). The EUSF was created to provide immediate financial
assistance in the event of a major disaster that would help the people, regions and countries concerned to
return as far as possible to normality. Intervention can take place only to help finance arrangements for
making good public damage not covered by insurance. The EUSF cannot be utilised to fund long-term
preventive measures.

In the context of disasters eligible for EUSF assistance, the funding of preventive measures is permissible
only in the case of operations essential for the immediate securing of preventive infrastructures and
measures providing immediate protection for the cultural heritage. The existence of the EUSF should not
relieve of their responsibility third parties who, under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, are liable in the first
instance for the damage caused by them; nor should it discourage preventive measures at both Member
State and Community level. Payments from the Fund are,
limited to financing measures
remedying non-insurable damages and will be recovered if a third party subsequently meets the cost of
repairing the damage.

in principle,

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 69.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European Union Solidarity Fund,

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.

(2004/C 58 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2136/03

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2003)

Subject: Improper use of a geographical term in a foodstuff’s name

The Lazzaroni firm, the producers of Amaretti di Saronno biscuits, which bear the distinctive name of the
Lombardy town where they were first made, is about to transfer production operations to the Isola del
Gran Sasso plant, which is some six hundred kilometres away, in another region.

Is the sale of a product bearing an explicit geographical description that is in no way connected to the
actual place of production permissible under EU law?

C 58 E/138

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 July 2003)

Amaretti di Saronno biscuits are not protected under Council Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
1992 (1) on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs. No certificate has been issued for them under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/92 of
14 July 1992 on certificates of specific character for agricultural products and foodstuffs (2) nor is the
name protected as a trade mark under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (3).

In consequence use of the name is not subject to specific constraints (production zone, production
method) under any of these Regulations.

Nonetheless under the provisions of Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 on
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of
foodstuffs (4) the labelling of Amaretti di Saronno biscuits must not be such as could mislead the purchaser
as to their origin or provenance. Not only does Article 3(1)(8) of that Directive require the actual
provenance of products to appear on their labelling but nothing in the labelling, presentation or
advertising of them as indicated in Article 1 may give the impression that the products come from the
Saronno area.

The expression Amaretti di Saronno may nevertheless be protected in some way in Italy. To find out if this
is so reference would have to be made to Italian law.

(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, OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.

(2) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994.
(4) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000.

(2004/C 58 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2159/03

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 June 2003)

Subject: Possibility of unfair competition by EU shipyard through forbidden use of shipbuilding subsidies

According to media reports the American cruise company, Carnival Corporation, announced on 29 July
2002 that it had reached an agreement with the Italian shipyard Fincantieri Cantieri Navali for the
construction of a new 110 000-ton ‘Conquest-class’ vessel for its Carnival Cruise Lines unit. The vessel is
scheduled for delivery in late fall 2005 at an approximate all-in cost of USD 450-460 million. According
to media reports the attractive price offered by Fincantieri played a key role in the decision.

The price for similar vessels previously ordered from Fincantieri has been announced to be around
In comparison the price for the vessel currently under construction is therefore
USD 500 million.
surprisingly low. The time difference between the deliveries of the current vessel and the previous ones is
1-2 years, so the cost development should have added a few percent more to the price of the new vessel.
The previous vessels have received a 9 % subvention, and the vessel currently under construction should
not (cid:1) at least according to the rules (cid:1) receive any subvention. So this means that Fincantieri gets a
substantially lower income for the currently announced vessel than from the ones before.

The astonishingly low price of the new vessel raises the questions, how Fincantieri Cantieri Navali can
afford to do so, and whether there is a possibility that subventions have been used, most likely indirectly
by military orders. Can the European Commission verify that no subventions have been used in this case?