WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/03 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Counterfeiting.
Date: 2003-12-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, customs regulations, fraud, industrial counterfeiting, mass-consumption product, product safety

C 84 E/266

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0313)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3921/03

by María Bergaz Conesa (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Illegal practices in use of water from the Segura Basin (Murcia, Spain)

The Spanish State Prosecutor is currently investigating illegal practices with regard to use of water from
the Segura Basin, the laxity of the Hydrographical Confederation in prosecuting illegal extraction of water
and the favouritism shown to certain businesses. Before the chief prosecutor of the Madrid High Court of
Justice, the chairman of the Segura Hydrographic Confederation has acknowledged that most of the cases
brought against alleged illegal water extraction had lapsed.

The legal proceedings currently involve the trial of a business group which is accused of using political
contacts in order to commit an alleged fraud, by manipulating European subsidies for the re-afforestation
of a burnt-out wood, a process which ended with the installation of drip irrigation.

It is intended that the Segura Basin will receive 450 hm3 from the Ebro water transfer.

Is the Commission aware of the large number of existing irregularities in controls on illegal extractions of
water from the Segura Basin?

Is the Commission aware of the alleged fraud involving European subsidies?

Is the Commission aware of other, similar cases?

Does the Commission intend to decide the funding of the Ebro water transfer before these irregularities are
identified and resolved?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

The Commission is aware through public sources that the Spanish judicial authorities are conducting
enquiries into alleged illegal practices relating to the use and allocation of water resources and to the
possible misuse of European subsidies relating to the Segura basin. The European Anti Fraud Office (OLAF)
remains available to provide assistance to the Spanish judicial authorities in the event that such assistance
is required.

The Commission is also aware, again through public sources,
there are many allegations/
denouncements of illegal abstractions of water in the Segura as well as in other river basins in the
South-East of Spain.

that

The Commission’s future decision concerning the possible allocation of Community funds for the
implementation of the Ebro transfer will be made according to the existing rules and procedures as set
down in the relevant regulations, and in full compliance with the applicable Community legislation and
policies including those relating to the environment.

(2004/C 84 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3923/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 December 2003)

Subject: Counterfeiting

According to the European Commission’s customs statistics, 50 million counterfeit or pirated articles were
seized at the EU’s external frontiers during the first six months of 2003, a figure much higher than that for
the corresponding period in 2002.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/267

It is also becoming clear that counterfeiting is no longer restricted to luxury products, but now also
embraces mass-produced items, such as mobile phones, toys, batteries, medicinal products and foodstuffs.

Quite apart from the economic losses suffered as a result of this illegal trade, counterfeit products are very
dangerous for consumers, since they do not comply with safety standards and are, by their very nature,
not subject to any official checks.

Against this background, can the Commission state whether a specific plan has been drawn up to combat
this scourge and, if so, can it outline the main features of that plan?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission attaches great importance to combating counterfeiting and piracy. Statistics compiled by
customs administrations at the EU’s external borders confirm that in the space of four years the number of
seizures for infringements of intellectual property rights has increased by more than 900 %.

Consequently, the Commission has taken a number of legal and operational initiatives both on customs
issues to do with controls at the EU’s external borders and on internal market-related issues.

On 22 July 2003, Council adopted a new customs regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (1). This new
legal instrument drafted jointly with the principal associations of holders of intellectual property rights,
being more flexible and effective, should enable small and medium-sized enterprises, especially, to defend
themselves better and at lower cost.

The other key issue is consumer protection and safety, as consumers are increasingly vulnerable given the
changing nature of product
fraud. Therefore, new intellectual property rights such as geographical
indications, designations of origin and plant varieties will be brought within the scope of the new customs
regulation. Such rights, as guarantees of quality and expertise, will in future be eligible for protection by
customs.

In addition, a number of the provisions of Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (2), in force since 15 January 2004, will help to
increase market surveillance for consumer products.

A number of major operational initiatives will be launched in early January 2004. EU enlargement to
include new Member States presents us with an opportunity and it is the responsibility of the new customs
union to protect its new frontiers. To this end,
in terms of combating counterfeiting and piracy, an
operational initiative aimed at helping the new Member States to set up a harmonised risk analysis system
is currently being examined.

As regards internal market measures, in recent years a great many legal provisions on intellectual property
have developed (including patents, trade marks and designs and copyright) and following the initiative
announced in the Commission communication entitled ‘Follow-up to the Green Paper on combating
counterfeiting and piracy in the single market’ (3) of 30 November 2000, the Commission adopted a
proposal on 30 January 2003 for a directive harmonising the means of applying all kinds of intellectual
property rights in the EU.

The Commission also introduced a series of anti-counterfeiting initiatives aimed specifically at engineering
products. This enabled an informative dossier to be compiled and distributed among European engineering
firms and an anti-counterfeiting workshop to be held in conjunction with the industry, represented by
Orgalime. A practical guide to combating counterfeiting, aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises, was
published in late 2001 and a database on fake engineering products was set up.

As regards international cooperation, several operational seminars and a number of conferences on
combating counterfeiting and piracy were held together with the EU’s major economic partners such as the

C 84 E/268

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) countries, China, Russia, the United States, Korea and
Japan. These led to a fruitful exchange of information and experience, and even, in some cases, significant
changes to the legislation of some of the countries mentioned.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 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, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2) OJ L 11, 15.1.2002.
(3) COM(2000) 789 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3938/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Use of surveying firms, contracted by the public authorities, to measure plot areas in connection

with participation in EU set-aside schemes

When farmers take part in EU set-aside schemes, the need to measure plots arises when the area of land in
respect of which set-aside funding has been requested is not identical with the area on the plans held by
the land register.

This prompts the following questions, which concern surveying firms contracted by the public authorities
in Germany:

(cid:1) Are there laws stipulating how proof should be provided that the correct area of land has been set

aside?

(cid:1) In the case outlined above, is the applicant required to have the plot of land in question measured?

(cid:1) In the case outlined above, who can or must be given the task of measuring the plot in question?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 February 2004)

The support system for certain arable crops established by Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 (1), which laid
down the set-aside requirement for each producer requesting an area payment, is subject to an integrated
administration and control system (IACS) under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (2) and Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (3). From 1 January 2005 onwards and with regard to the aid schemes
introduced under the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP), the legal basis for IACS will
be Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (4). The Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for applying
that Regulation in this respect has not yet been adopted.

Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 stipulates that the aid application submitted by the
farmer must contain particulars permitting identification of all agricultural parcels on the holding, their
is irrigated. The parcels included in an aid
area,
application must therefore be declared correctly, and the farmer will be penalised if a check carried out by
the relevant authorities reveals over-declaration.

location, use and whether the agricultural parcel

The farmer may consider it necessary to have parcels measured in order to fulfil the correct declaration
requirement. This task may be performed by anyone properly qualified to do so.

The authorities designated by the Member States to carry out IACS checks are responsible for ensuring that
the information contained in aid applications meets the conditions for granting aid, of which the set-aside
requirement forms part.