WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/04 by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission. Second and Third Community Support Frameworks.
Date: 2004-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU Member State, commitment of expenditure

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/613

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

As already stated in its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-3814/02 (1),
the
Commission is fully aware of the widespread practice of fraudulent prize-winning draws where rogue
traders seek to take advantage of the freedoms of the internal market. It has proposed legislation to tackle
some of the problems involved with this.

Under current legislation, the practice in question appears to clearly infringe Council Directive 84/450/EEC
of 10 September 1984 (2) as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
6 October 1997 concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertisement (3). In future,
misleading advertising harming consumers’ economic interests will be regulated by the proposed Directive
on Unfair Commercial Practices (4), which will put in place a common, EU-wide framework providing a
high level of consumer protection from such unfair practices.

However,
the Commission cannot itself take action against the organiser of these prize-draws. The
enforcement of national and Community consumer law is the task of the designated national courts and
authorities.

Further to this previous answer, the Commission can inform the Honourable Member that it has adopted a
proposal for a Regulation on co-operation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of
consumer protection laws (5). This Regulation is designed to address this type of problem through rapid
cooperation between public authorities. Once adopted, this Regulation will allow the authority in charge of
consumer protection to seek and receive the assistance of its counterpart in another Member State to cease
business practices infringing Community consumer law that target consumers cross-border.

The so-called ‘qualified entities’ (6) may already seek an injunction requiring the cessation or prohibition of
an infringement of Community consumer law under the terms of the Directive 98/27/EC of the Parliament
and of the Council of 19 May 1998, on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (7). In a
concrete example, the qualified entity of one Member State could ask the competent court of the Member
State from which the mail originates to stop sending out misleading letters to its citizens.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.
(3) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.
(4) COM(2003) 356 final.
(5) COM(2003) 443 final.
(6) OJ C 159, 8.7.2003.
(7) OJ L 166, 11.6.1998.

(2004/C 84 E/0688)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0523/04

by Emmanouil Mastorakis (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Second and Third Community Support Frameworks

Will the Commission give the take-up votes for the 2003 estimates for the Member States of the European
Union in respect of the Second and Third Community Support Frameworks?

C 84 E/614

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission would refer
Mr Hatzidakis. (1)

(1) See page 553.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written P-0230/04 by

(2004/C 84 E/0689)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0528/04

by Guido Sacconi (PSE), Vincenzo Lavarra (PSE)
and Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Amendment of Regulation 753/2002 on the description, designation, presentation and protection

of certain wine sector products

On 10 February the Management Committee for Wine deliberated on the amendment of Regulation 753/
2002 (1) on the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products.

Since the committee was unable to deliver an opinion because of its failure to secure a qualified majority,
responsibility for the future amendment of the regulation now lies solely with the Commission.

The amendment of the regulation concerns the indications to be included on wine labels. The terms
previously used on European wine labels to indicate the production or ageing method or a particular
quality, colour or place of production will no longer be protected against possible usurpation by non-
European producers.

Since adopting its White Paper on Food Safety, the Commission has stood up for the rights of consumers,
with a view to restoring and maintaining confidence in a sector plagued by scandals and doubts.

Consumers are entitled to be provided with information on the quality of foodstuffs and their ingredients
and such information must be presented clearly to enable them to make informed choices.

For many years, consumer preferences in Europe have been moving towards healthier products produced
by environment-friendly methods. Underpinning this
trend has been the Commission’s ongoing
commitment to ensuring and safeguarding quality.

How can the Commission justify its amendment of this regulation, particularly in the light of the outcome
of the vote in the Management Committee for Wine on 10 February (47 in favour, 20 against)?

Does the Commission not consider that the amendment of the regulation is at odds with trends in the
rules previously adopted governing quality, protection of typical products and transparency?

In drawing up its proposal
the
predominant position enjoyed by the European Union in the world wine market (accounting for 45 % of
wine-growing areas, 65 % of production, 57 % of consumption and 70 % of exports)?

to amend the regulation, has the Commission taken account of

(1) OJ L 118, 4.5.2002, p. 1.