WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/04 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Legislation on yoghurt.
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: foodstuffs legislation, free movement of goods, labelling, product designation, single market, technical barriers to trade, yoghourt

C 84 E/838

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1) (hereafter Habitats Directive), Annex IV (a). These species are therefore subject to a strict protection
scheme that requires, among others, that their deliberate killing is prohibited. The Directive does, however,
recognize that in certain situations there may exist the need for derogation from this general rule of strict
protection. These justifications, which include public safety and damage to agricultural interests are listed
in Article 16 of the Directive. Member-States may apply these derogations provided that there is no
satisfactory alternative and the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the
species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area in Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in
Annex V to the same Directive. This means that management measures may be used to control the
population. Nevertheless, for species covered by this annex, the use of means capable of causing local
disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations is prohibited. This therefore applies to wolf
populations in the reindeer herding area (2). It lies within the competence of the national authorities to take
appropriate measures with due regard to the above. According to the information the Commission has
received, there have been no reproductions of wolves in the reindeer herding area in recent years.

Information provided by the Finnish authorities to the Commission on reindeer mortality indicate that
road kills (2 500 animals in 2002) are far more significant than predation by large carnivores (2-300 killed
by wolves in 2002). The claim that the level of predation is in danger of putting an end to reindeer
husbandry (200 000 animals in Finland 2002) is certainly not supported by the official data.

Outside the reindeer herding area killing of wolves is allowed only in accordance with Article 16
derogation, i.e. it is possible only in cases where there is no satisfactory alternative and provided that the
derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of populations of the species concerned at a favourable
conservation status in their natural range. The Commission is aware that the Finnish authorities are
permitting a number of wolves to be killed every year by way of such derogations.

While it is true that there has been a small increase in wolf population in Finland during the recent years
this has been from a very low figure. The current estimated population of 140 (official Finnish data)
cannot be regarded as representing a favourable conservation status in the terms of the Habitats Directive.
This assessment is not contested by the Finnish authorities since the official Red Data Book of endangered
species published by the Ministry of Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute includes the wolf.
This population level remains very low compared to a number of other Member States (e.g. Spain 2 000,
Italy 500, Portugal 400).

The management of the species in the Annexes lies within the competence of the national authorities,
taking into regard the requirements of the Directive. The Commission has discussed on a number of
occasions the issue of wolf management in Finland with the national authorities and have encouraged
them to formulate comprehensive policy and approach within an overall national management plan.
The Finnish authorities agreed in July 2002 to prepare such a plan before the end of 2002. The
Commission has yet to receive this plan.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

(2004/C 84 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/04

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Legislation on yoghurt

The 15 Member States currently regulate the marketing of yoghurt on the sole basis of a Commission
Communication of 1991, designed to interpret the Smanor ruling of the Court of Justice, which referred to
a case involving the naming of the product. By virtue of this communication, the Member States are free

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/839

to ban the use of the term ‘yoghurt’ on their territory for heat-treated products. The Communication
makes three exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement of goods and the mutual recognition of
sales terminology: caviar, vinegar and yoghurt. Various countries use the Communication to forbid the use
of the term ‘yoghurt’ for pasteurised yoghurts, a practice which is a clear obstacle to the single market.

Given that the most recent scientific studies have shown that there is no evidence of the supposed benefits
of yoghurt with live bacteria, what is the point of continuing this restriction on the free movement of
goods, which furthermore infringes consumers’ freedom of choice and their right to truthful information?

Does the Commission intend to do something to bring to an end, once and for all, all these obstacles to
the completion of the Single Market, in the shape of measures to harmonise legislation on yoghurt?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

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 84 E/0932)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0668/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Irish Government’s failure to cooperate with Lough Ree investigation

What reply, if any, has the Commission received from the Irish Government in response to the letter of
formal notice it sent
to Ireland in April 2003, as announced in IP/03/544, regarding the Irish
Government’s failure to cooperate with its investigations into complaints about the deterioration of water
the cumulative effects of new
quality in Lough Ree, specifically in relation to taking account of
developments in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC (1))?

What action has the Commission taken or is it considering in this matter?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission’s letter of
formal notice, referred to by the Honourable Member, addressed non-
cooperation by Ireland consisting in a failure to respond to a request for information about compliance
with environmental
Ireland subsequently
legislation in relation to Lough Ree, County Roscommon.
provided a detailed response to the Commission’s original information request. This response is considered
as having brought to an end the infringement for non-cooperation based on Article 10 of the EC Treaty,
and no further action is currently contemplated on this ground. The Commission is still considering the
substantive issues raised by the original complaint (1).

(1) P2001/4787.