WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/04 by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector.
Date: 2004-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, State aid, control of State aid, restriction on competition, shipbuilding

C 84 E/436

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, such requirements may be drawn up and imposed by the Member
States.

As regards the sale of out-of-date foodstuffs, the distinction made between ‘best before …’ (minimum
(final date for consumption) ensues directly from the Community
durability date) and ‘use by …’
legislation (2).

The minimum durability date or (in the case of foodstuffs that are highly microbiologically perishable) the
final date for consumption must be indicated to the consumer in all cases.

The minimum durability date is the date until which foodstuffs retain their specific properties when
properly stored. Foodstuffs may therefore be consumed, and sold, after this date, as the consumer is able to
check the date and decide whether or not to purchase the product. This date is indicated after the words
‘best before …’ or ‘best before end of …’

In the case of highly microbiological perishable products, the final date for consumption is the date after
which the product must not be consumed and logically cannot be sold as it is likely to harbour
microbiological risks or organoleptic impairments. This date is indicated after the words ‘use by …’

In order to avoid any risk of error by the consumer, the Commission feels it is necessary to maintain a
distinction between foodstuffs with long durability (in some cases several years) and those which must be
consumed quickly.

However,
in connection with future developments and any reforms it might propose to labelling
legislation, the Commission will examine whether the meanings of the dates used in food labelling need to
be clarified and, if so, how.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the
general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down
procedures in matters of food safety, OJ L 31, 1.2.2002.

(2) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109,
6.5.2000. Most recently amended by Directive 2003/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
10 November 2003, OJ L 308, 25.11.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0508)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0605/04

by Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(27 February 2004)

Subject: Follow-up to question E-3005/02 on the European shipbuilding sector

In respect of the aid of approximately EUR 700 million granted by the Spanish government to the Spanish
shipbuilding sector, can the Commission answer following questions:

1. Was the Commission notified of this aid by the Spanish government?

2. Does the European Commission share the view that, given the scale of the Spanish shipbuilding

industry, the amount has to be regarded as disproportionate?

3. Does the European Commission not agree that a thorough investigation is required into the action by
the Spanish Government, which potentially involves a distortion of competition and, above all, into
how the Spanish shipbuilding industry calculates its cost prices? Has the Commission already begun
such an investigation and, if not, when will it do so?

4.

In view of the seriousness of the general situation in the European shipbuilding sector, is the European
Commission prepared to set up a crisis team that can respond quickly and monitor measures taken by
Member States, in order to prevent unfair competition on the European internal market?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/437

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

At this moment in time, Spain has not notified under the State aid rules the measures referred to by

1.
the Honourable Member.

2.
At this early stage it is not possible to say whether the measures constitute State aid, and if so,
whether they are compatible or not. Furthermore, since the measures appear to be intended for a number
of years, it is difficult to judge whether, as the Honourable Member states, they are disproportionate.

3.
The Commission is closely following the issue and will request information from the Spanish
authorities. In another file, in which proceedings were opened according to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty
(suspected State aid to Spanish public civil shipyards in the form of capital injections to IZAR) (1), the
Commission requested Spain to clarify how overhead costs are distributed in IZAR and to clarify the costs
for a civil ferry built in one of IZAR’s military shipyards.

Concerning the suggestion of a crisis team for shipbuilding, the Commission is not fully sure of how
4.
such a team could work from a practical or legal point of view. However, the Honourable Member can be
assured that allegations of unfair competition in the EU shipbuilding market are taken very seriously in the
Commission, and that adequate human resources are already used in the State aid departments to follow
the shipbuilding industry.

(1) OJ C 201, 26.8.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0509)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0625/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: If the French State prevents Jean-Marie Le Pen from standing in the regional elections it would

represent a serious breach of Article 6 of the EU Treaty

The candidacy of the former MEP Jean-Marie Le Pen at the forthcoming French regional elections in the
Provence-Alpes-Côtes d’Azur (PACA) region appears to have been blocked for specious, bureaucratic
reasons, which appear all the more petty and politically motivated given that this politician, who received
the most votes after Chirac in the recent French presidential elections, could legally have stood and been
elected as a regional councillor in the aforementioned region of France.

Does the Commission consider that the possible exclusion for captious formal reasons of the right-wing
political leader Jean-Marie Le Pen represents a serious breach of the principle of political freedom which
forms the basis of the EU and that it goes against the guarantees laid down by the European Convention
on safeguarding human rights and basic freedoms in terms of civil and political rights, which in a
democracy must be enjoyed by all citizens?

In the case in point, does not the Commission consider that this is a clear and flagrant breach of Article 6
of the EU Treaty (cid:1) intended to safeguard the principles set out above (cid:1) and in particular of its
paragraphs 1 and 2, on the part of the French authorities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

Under the EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union, the Commission does not have any general
powers regarding fundamental rights. It may act only in cases where those rights have been infringed in
connection with the application of Community law.