WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/04 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies.
Date: 2004-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, Italy, State aid, cessation of trading, control of State aid, engine, transfer of businesses

C 84 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2004)

It is true that in some cases there have been some misunderstandings about the nature and objectives
1.
of the new instruments established under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research (FP 6). These have
meant that certain expectations on the part of the participants in these projects (correct or incorrect) may
not have been met in full when negotiating their projects with the Commission. For example, the
Commission has an obligation to ensure that the Community financial contribution is provided in
accordance with the provisions and requirements of the Financial Regulation (1) and that the legal and
financial interests of the Community are ensured when entering into contracts with third parties.

However, it should also be said that guidance and information on the new instruments, as well as on
the contractual aspects relating to the negotiation of projects have been provided both to potential
contractors and to the Commission. Much of this information can be found either on the Cordis web
site or on the model contract web site at (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/fp6/working-groups/model-
contract/index_en.html)

2.
The Rules for Participation, the model contract that is based on those Rules and the provisions of the
Financial Regulation are all applied when negotiating contracts with successful consortia. These principles
should not differ from any ‘originally announced’.

3.

Yes.

4.
As mentioned in point 1 much information has been produced by the Commission to help and
explain both to potential contractors and within the Commission the legal, financial and contractual
aspects applicable to FP6. If there are specific cases of discrepancy between the Rules established and the
practices carried out, these should be brought to the attention of those responsible within the Commission.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.

(2004/C 84 E/0233)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0281/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Wärtsilä and Italian state subsidies

The engine manufacturers Wärtsilä are halting production of diesel engines at Turku in Finland and
moving their operation to Trieste in Italy. In his reply to a parliamentary question from Theodorus
Bouwman, MEP (P-3451/01) (1), Commissioner Monti said the Commission was looking into the possible
misuse of state subsidies in connection with Wärtsilä’s closure of its Zwolle plant. Now that we have a
further instance of Wärtsilä closing a viable production unit in one country and moving its operations to
another, suspicions are reinforced that the Italian state is supporting a former state-owned production unit
on improper grounds. Can the (Italian) Commissioner responsible for competition tell me whether the
investigations referred to in his answer to Mr Bouwman’s question have been completed, what was the
result of these investigations as regards possible distortions of competition, and whether Wärtsilä has
received, or is receiving, unjustified aid from the Italian State?

(1) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 180.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/193

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The investigations referred to in the Commission’s reply to written question P-3451/01 by Mr Bouwman
have been completed. The Italian authorities confirmed that, apart from the aid from the European Social
Fund (ESF) as part of the 1997-1998 Single programming document (SPD) for vocational training, to
which the reply to Mr Bouwman’s written question already refers, no State aid had been granted to
Wärtsilä and no agreement had been concluded with the company on its acquisition of the company
Grandi Motori di Trieste.

(2004/C 84 E/0234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0287/04

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Mislabelling of seal oil in the EU

Is the Commission aware of the fact that many Member States are currently placing on the EU market
products containing oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals and that this oil is mislabelled as ‘marine
oil’, ‘fish oil’ or ‘fat oil’?

Is the Commission aware of the fact that seal oil from Canadian harp and hooded seals is currently used by
some EU industries in several commonly consumed products such as pharmaceuticals, nutritional
supplements for human use, pet food and animal feed using the above-mentioned misleading terms on
their labels?

Given the existing stringent EU legislation on the labelling of products,
in particular of nutritional
supplements, as well as on consumer and health protection, is the Commission going to ensure that these
products do not stay on the EU market with the current misleading label? Furthermore, given that many
European citizens have ethical concerns about Canadian seal hunting, will the Commission ensure that this
seal oil is labelled with the term ‘Canadian Seal oil’ in order to safeguard consumer choice?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2004)

General legislation on the labelling of foodstuffs (1) lays down labelling requirements in order to ensure that
consumers have information on the objective characteristics of products, such as the name under which
the product is sold, the ingredients, the quantity or durability.

With regard to the designation of ingredients on labels, Directive 2000/13/EC provides that ingredients
must be referred to by their specific name. Refined oils, however, may be included in the list of ingredients
under the category name ‘oil’, followed either by an indication of the type, i.e. ‘vegetable’ or ‘animal’, or by
an indication of the specific animal or vegetable origin.

In line with these provisions, the ingredient ‘seal oil’ must be referred to by the terms ‘animal oil’ or ‘seal
oil’.

The designations mentioned by the Honourable Member therefore do not comply with these provisions,
and it is up to the national monitoring authorities to take measures to rectify the situation. Member States
have in any case been reminded of these points.