WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Made in Europe label for goods made in the Member States.
Date: 2003-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: certificate of origin, common commercial policy, customs inspection, illicit trade, import policy, industrial counterfeiting, industrial property, international trade

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/159

(2004/C 88 E/0168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3902/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject:

‘Made in Europe’ label for goods made in the Member States

At the Euro-Mediterranean conference held in Palermo on 7 July 2003, the Italian Deputy Minister for
Production Activities, Adolfo Urso, put forward a proposal that was received with great interest by the
ministers of the fifteen Member States, namely that a ‘Made in Europe’ label be placed on EU goods in
order to combat counterfeiting and unfair competition.

Owing to major changes in international trade and strong pressure from Asian competitors, appropriate
protection and safeguards should be provided for European products on world markets.

Asian countries are not required to certify the origin of their goods under the compulsory reciprocity
arrangement with the EU Member States, in which it is forbidden, under the competition rules, to place a
national
label on most products. Asian goods are therefore placed on European markets without
consumers being able to make an informed choice on the basis of a product’s place of origin.

However, some countries, such as Japan and the United States protect their products by means of labels
such as ‘Made in the USA’ and ‘Made in Japan’ which, while indicating the origin of a given product, also
imply given quality and manufacturing standards.

The Italian proposal seeks to provide protection for EU goods, with the general ‘Made in Europe’ label also
bearing the name of the Member State of origin.

Given that the conclusions of the Euro-Mediterranean conference set out the steps to be taken towards
this, not least with a view to the next round of WTO meetings, which will focus exclusively on this
subject, would the Commission:

1.

state what action has been taken since the aforementioned Euro-Mediterranean conference?

2.

state what measures have been planned or are being or have been taken at European level
connection with the European label?

in

3.

state how it and the other institutions reacted to the Italian proposal?

4. provide full and comprehensive information on this issue as a whole?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3824/03 and E-3902/03
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission is highly concerned about the current level of counterfeiting and commercial piracy and
the harmful effects on EU manufacturers. The protection of right-holders against counterfeit goods
constitutes a Community priority and a number of important recent steps have been adopted, including
the Council Regulation No (EC) 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods
suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods
found to have infringed such rights (1) and a proposal for a Directive on measures and procedures to
ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2). In addition, a number of practical steps have been
taken to improve customs controls in this area, most notably under the Customs 2007 (cid:1) Programme (3),
which contributed towards Customs seizing almost 85 million counterfeit or pirated articles at the EU’s
external border in 2002 and 50 million in the first half of 2003.

C 88 E/160

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Unfair imports can also be related to dumping practices by foreign manufacturers. Dumping gives the
third country exporters an unfair competitive advantage which causes significant injury to Community
producers. The Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped
the Community (4) regulates the antidumping
imports from countries which are not members of
mechanisms that can be adopted by the Community customs administrations in order to ensure fair
trade practices in the international trade relationships. Currently, more than 200 antidumping measures
are in force in the Community.

it is worth
As far as World Trade Organisation (WTO) developments and reciprocity are concerned,
mentioning that in the Doha Development Agenda Market Access Negotiating Group the EU is calling for
a narrow, common range of duties applied by all members, especially on textiles and footwear.

In relation to origin marking, some of the Community trade partners (United States, Japan) operate systems
comprising compulsory origin marking for imported goods and voluntary origin marks for domestic
production. At present, a Community Regulation on origin marking does not exist. Notwithstanding, there
seems to be a growing interest in the possibility of adopting a Community Regulation on origin marking,
notably in the textile sector, as indicated in the recent Communication from the Commission on the future
of the textile and clothing sector in the enlarged European Union (5) arguing the benefits of developing a
Community origin marking Regulation for the same sector.

The Commission is currently reflecting on the potential benefits and risks of the implementation of such a
scheme considering the interest of all the stakeholders. To this end, the services of the Commission have
published a working document ‘made in the EU origin marking’ (6). This paper gives an overview on the
pros and cons of a made in EU origin marking and indicates the options to be considered, namely: the
option of origin marking both for imports and domestic market products on a purely voluntary basis;
the approach of a mixed system with compulsory origin marking for imports and a voluntary scheme for
domestic products; and the third option of a compulsory origin marking both for imports and for
domestic products. The Commission will consult consumers and industry in early 2004 and invited
Member States to do likewise.

(1) OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.
(2) COM(2003) 46 final.
(3) Decision No 253/2003/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2003, OJ L 36, 12.2.2003 and

OJ L 95, 11.4.2003.

(4) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996.
(5) COM(2003) 649 final.
(6)

available online on the website of the Commission: at DG Trade at:
http://trade-info.cec.eu.int/doclib/html/115557.htm

(2004/C 88 E/0169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3958/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Russia (cid:1) parliamentary elections

According to media reports the international observers who were present at the recent parliamentary
elections in Russia (cid:1) in particular the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and
the Council of Europe, which despatched 600 observers (cid:1) expressed concern at the outcome and the
methods used during the election campaign. Although they do not doubt that the elections were free, they
question whether they were fair.

According to the preliminary results the United Russia (UR) party (which is pro-Kremlin and an ally of the
President, Vladimir Putin) was the major victor in the elections.