WRITTEN QUESTION P-2159/03 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Possibility of unfair competition by EU shipyard through forbidden use of shipbuilding subsidies.
Date: 2003-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, market prices, price formation, restriction on competition, shipbuilding

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?

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/139

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Many elements influence the price of a ship, and shipyards may take into account various aspects such as
order situation, relations with important customers, raw material, productivity improvement etc. when
setting the price. Moreover, price and financing conditions of individual orders are business secrets.
Furthermore, it is difficult for the Commission to comment on a press article.

However, it can be noted that the ship referred to in the question by the Honourable Member appears to
be very similar to a ship previously built by the same shipyard for the same owner, which would imply
significantly reduced development costs.

Nevertheless, it needs also to be underlined that if a particularly low price of a ship is linked to illegal
subsidies, this may create distortions in the internal market. While the elements provided in the referred
article are not sufficient to conclude that any irregularities have taken place, the Commission takes careful
note of the concerns raised by the Honourable Member. The Commission will continue to keep the
Community shipbuilding market under close review.

(2004/C 58 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
and Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Failure of the Italian government to implement Directive 89/618/Euratom (radiological

Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 (1) on informing the general public about health
protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency states the
following in its Article 5:

1. Member States shall ensure that the population likely to be affected in the event of a radiological
emergency is given information about the health protection measures applicable to it and about the
action it should take in the event of such an emergency.

2.

The information supplied shall at least include the elements set out in Annex I.

This information shall be communicated to the population referred to in paragraph 1 without

3.
any request being made.

The Italian government incorporated the directive by means of Legislative Decree No 230 of 17 March
1995, but made its implementation partly conditional on the appearance of further legislation which has
not materialised to date.

In practice, no preventive information has been supplied to those likely to be affected in the event of a
radiological emergency. This has recently been confirmed by the local representatives of the Italian
government in Vercelli.

This failure to provide preventive information is quite unjustifiably increasing the risks attached to such
emergencies: the public is not properly prepared and is therefore not in a position to take the appropriate
measures.

This failure to act on Italian territory runs counter to the spirit of the intervention plans for nuclear
emergencies, as has been made clear following accidents at several nuclear power stations and others
occurring with the transport of highly radioactive substances (cid:1) as with the measures now under way to
transfer part of the irradiated nuclear fuel from the Saluggia nuclear storage plant (Vicenza, Italy) to the
Sellafield treatment plant in the UK.