do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/04 by Joaquim Piscarreta (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition in the wine sector.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, TRIPS, common commercial policy, designation of origin, fortified wine, labelling, product designation, restriction on competition, viticulture, wine

C 84 E/680

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0837/04

by Joaquim Piscarreta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European
Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine
such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

(cid:1) the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

(cid:1) Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’,

‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva

velha’;

(cid:1) both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

(cid:1) the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira

wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

(cid:1) in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always

upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

(cid:1) these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

(cid:1) the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

(cid:1) in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the

negotiating context of the WTO.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO

1.
negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

3. What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers (cid:1) in particular
those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?

(2004/C 84 E/0767)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0838/04

by Raquel Cardoso (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European
Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine
such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/04 by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition in the wine sector.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, TRIPS, common commercial policy, designation of origin, fortified wine, labelling, product designation, restriction on competition, viticulture

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/679

Since the Spanish authorities have expressed their intention to submit to the Commission the outcome of
the environmental assessment procedure, expected by the 2nd quarter of 2004, the Commission will then
examine the legal questions arising from this file regarding the full compliance with Community
Environmental Law.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0765)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0836/04

by Regina Bastos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

On 23 February 2004 the Commission approved new rules on the labelling of wine in the European
Union, which will enable third countries to use, within the Community, traditional descriptions for wine
such as ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, ‘ruby’ etc. and to export such wines to the EU.

The following facts should be borne in mind:

(cid:1) the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’ and ‘ruby’;

(cid:1) Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’,

‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva

velha’;

(cid:1) both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions;

(cid:1) the new labelling rules will ‘trivialise’ the use of these expressions to the detriment of port and Madeira

wine producers and their products, which in effect constitutes a distortion of competition;

(cid:1) in the context of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations, the European Union has always

upheld the need to adopt a balanced agreement, particularly important for non-tariff issues;

(cid:1) these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.;

(cid:1) the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September;

(cid:1) in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the

negotiating context of the WTO.

Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO

1.
negotiating framework?

2. What it considers the European Union has gained by this unusual and unexpected concession?

3. What its assessment is of the consequences of this decision for Community producers (cid:1) in particular
those in the port and Madeira wine producing areas?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04 by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission. Position of the French language in the European institutions.
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, linguistic discrimination, official language, use of languages

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/649

Moving to a material based approach for the promotion of recycling is one of the options put forward in
the communication towards the Thematic Strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste (3). As the
question suggests, it could indeed promote greater coherence in the handling of certain waste.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) OJ L 47, 18.2.2004.
(3) COM(2003) 301 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0730)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0651/04

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(8 March 2004)

Subject: Position of the French language in the European institutions

According to press reports, the Commission is apparently earmarking some EUR 20 million in order to
make French ‘the’ official language in the institutions. The relevant decision was apparently taken after it
became clear that the vast majority of future officials from the ten new Member States had English as their
second language. Still according to press reports, the aim is, apparently, to teach French to 5 000 officials
by 2008. (The French Government itself is also making an effort to promote the French language in the
future Member States).

Is this information correct?

While nobody would deny the desirability of promoting a knowledge of languages other than the mother
tongue, primarily in the European institutions as well, it would seem that the learning of one specific
language (namely French) is being promoted as a reaction to the perceived dominance of another language.
Were similar measures set up in the past with the same view in mind? Which languages were then
involved?

Is not the Commission giving the impression that it is trying to regulate the relationship between
languages in the European Union for the benefit of one specific language and to the detriment of others?
Should not the Commission be adopting an impartial stance?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission would refer
Mr Seppänen. (1)

(1) See page 358.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written E-0308/04 by

(2004/C 84 E/0731)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0652/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Commission against elementary rules of safety at sea

According to document IP/04/159, the Commission believes that the Greek authorities’ requirement that
cabotage vessel crews on domestic routes must pass a Greek language proficiency test is illegal.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 424/2004 of 8 March 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit, stone fruit

L 70/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.3.2004

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 424/2004

of 8 March 2004

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particu-
lar Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 March 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

9.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 70/13

to the Commission Regulation of 8 March 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the
entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 50 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
999

052
068
204
999

220
999

052
204
628
999

052
204
212
220
400
624
999

052
600
999

052
060
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
999

060
388
400
512
528
720
999

105,5
61,0
120,5
95,7

150,2
106,2
32,5
96,3

80,1
80,1

111,0
54,1
136,0
100,4

45,0
48,2
58,5
50,6
44,5
59,5
51,1

50,0
57,6
53,8

60,0
36,5
109,0
109,2
100,4
82,5
92,4
80,9
89,0
81,0
84,1

66,7
72,9
84,3
59,8
75,5
70,3
71,6

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘999’ stands for

‘of other origin’.