WRITTEN QUESTION P-0687/04 by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods.
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, application of EU law, case-law (EU), consumer information, free movement of goods, intra-EU trade, labelling, product designation, tax system, trade restriction, yoghourt

C 88 E/706

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

However, the Commission is working to ensure strong follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial process,
including through the provision of financial support and in dialogue with partner countries. Dialogue with
partner countries has focused on the attainment of the overall objective of the declaration, which is to
strengthen forest sector governance in Africa. Strengthened forest sector governance will in turn support
improvements in many aspects of forest management in Africa, including matters relating to bushmeat.

Follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial conference must reflect commitment from African governments,
African civil society and the private sector. Follow-up activities will be subject to a loose form of central
co-ordination, but the emphasis is firmly on governments and organisations contributing in the best ways
they see fit. The Commission is providing technical, political and financial support for these activities.

In Cameroon an ‘Environment and Forests Cell’ is funded from the European Development Fund. This
provides support to assist the government to address challenges which arise in relation to forests and the
environment, including bushmeat.

In numerous other African countries, the Commission provides support to governments, civil society and
local people to facilitate the sustainable management of protected areas, forest concessions and the wildlife
resources found therein. This support will continue to be made available.

(2004/C 88 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0687/04

by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods

Various dairy businesses in various Member States produce yoghurt which meets national legislation, either
post-fermentation pasteurised, heat-treated or long-life. all of these companies export their yoghurts to
Portugal and others could do so in future. The result is that the pasteurised yoghurts of the various
Member States need to adapt to Portuguese legislation, which demands that the term ‘yoghurt’ be replaced
by ‘dairy dessert’, which is completely foreign to the nature of the foodstuff in question. Calling the same
product one thing in the exporting country, and another in the importing country gives rise, in this case,
to various forms of indirect taxation which impede its movement: in the case of Spain, 5 % for the yoghurt
product in Spain, and 19 % for the Portuguese ‘dairy dessert’, which thus constitutes a measure having
equivalent effect. Furthermore, and taking due account of the constant and vast jurisprudence of the Court
of Justice: Cassis de Dijon (CJ 120/78 of 20.02.1979), Smanor (CJ 298/87 of 14.07.1988), Deserbais
(CJ 286/86 of 22.09.1988), Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (CJ 8/74 of 11.07.1974), REWE (CJ 120/76 of
20.02.1979), Rau (CJ 261/81 of 10.11.1982), or Commission v Germany (the beer case) (CJ 178/84 of
12.03.1987), I believe that the principle of mutual recognition of legislation of the country of manufacture
is being straightforwardly violated, since it means that the marketing of the imported yoghurt product is
more difficult and costly due to the extra expenditure on labelling and packaging, and that the consumer is
also burdened by the fact that he may be confused by so generic a name as ‘dairy dessert’, and by a
multilingual label in which different names to indicate the nature of the product are used in different
languages.

Does the Commission therefore believe that Portugal is failing to meet one of the obligations laid down in
the Treaty, violating the principle of the freedom of movement of goods and Article 5 and preliminary
recitals 2, 6, 8 and 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) on food labelling? If so, what is it going to do?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/707

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

According to the jurisprudence of the European Court, the compatibility of the Portuguese labelling
requirements with article 28 of the EC Treaty will depend on the extent to which:

(cid:1) the characteristics of the pasteurised yoghurts mentioned are not substantially different, particularly as

regards the quantity of bacteria, from those of the fresh product; and

(cid:1) appropriate labelling is sufficient to inform consumers.

The Commission is examining the need to establish legislation on yoghurt and yoghurt-like products
which includes the aspects mentioned by the Honourable Member.

Following that examination, which should be completed in the near future, where it is considered
appropriate and necessary to establish additional legislation, the Commission will forward a proposal to
the Parliament and to the Council.

(2004/C 88 E/0729)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0708/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject: Disappearance of last-remaining sources of income for Roma population in eastern Slovakia and

resultant looting, violent clashes and migration

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Roma population in the east of Slovakia, which accounts for the
majority of the population in many localities and has been increasingly hard hit by unemployment in the
last fifteen years, is now being totally deprived of any source of income as a result of cuts in social security
payments?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the despair caused by loss of income is meanwhile leading to
clashes between the population and the massive police presence in the region, and to the looting of shops
and petrol stations?

3.
Are the cuts against which popular anger is being directed a consequence of the requirements with
which the Slovakian government is expected to comply in order to ensure its country’s membership of the
European Union from 1 May 2004, or is the Slovakian government free to increase public expenditure to
a level that would enable the underlying causes of social unrest quickly to be removed?

Does the Commission expect the present situation to step up the pressure on the Roma people in
4.
Slovakia to leave their homeland, temporarily or for the long term, in order to earn money in Western
Europe? What will be the impact of any such development now that most of the present EU Member
States are seeking to restrict worker migration in the first few years after the new Member States accede?

5.
Does the Commission agree that in the extremely difficult circumstances of the Roma people at this
time it would be a mistake to seek to explain the disturbances solely by the presence of criminal gangs,
and that other measures are needed to solve the current problems than locking up individuals caught
breaking the law?

6. What can EU policy contribute to putting the Slovakian Roma people in the position of shortly being
able to earn a sufficient income in their present homeland to enable them to continue to live there without
having to resort to looting or come into violent conflict with the authorities in order to secure a
livelihood?