WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/04 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Wine.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: TRIPS, common commercial policy, designation of origin, impact study, labelling, product designation, viticulture, wine

C 84 E/852

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Evaluation and monitoring of measures to fight organised financial crime will take on growing importance
for the Commission. To this end, the Commission will work towards establishing working methods as well
as targeting areas and objectives proposed in close co-operation with Member States and other relevant
bodies such as Europol, Eurostat and Member States’ statistical agencies, relevant sectors of the academic
community, and the private sector, as appropriate.

The Commission intends to create European expert groups on statistics and criminal research and set up
an EU network of national correspondents on crime statistics. Two ad-hoc experts’ meetings, organized by
the Commission under the Forum on the Prevention of Organised Crime, have already taken place with a
view to preparing this initiative.

In this context,
the Commission is also supporting the implementation of a set of economic risk
assessments on sectoral organised crime, with a view to formulating a European methodology on
economic risk analysis and to encourage the development of early warning systems, benchmarking
exercises and the identification and exchange of good practices in reducing crime, victimisation and fear of
crime.

Finally, the potential value added of dedicated observatories will also be assessed in this context.

(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender
the
procedures between Member States (cid:1) Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of
Framework Decision, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002.

(2) Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders

freezing property or evidence, OJ L 196, 2.8.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0945)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0706/04

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Wine

It came as a surprise when, in February, the Commission adopted an amendment to the Regulation on
wine labelling, allowing third countries to market wines using traditional EU nomenclature, such as
crianza, reserva or gran reserva, against the wishes of the producer countries.

Furthermore, for years now the Commission has been conducting thorny negotiations, both bilaterally and
through the WTO, with a view to preserving our traditional appellations. Only recently have various third
countries lodged complaints with the WTO against Regulation (CE) 753/2002 (1) on the labelling of wine,
since in practice, it does not authorise the use of the traditional Community terminology.

Why did the Commission not wait until the WTO returned its opinion before it made any amendment to
the EU legislation, and thus not throw away the chance of defending our interests at WTO level?

What criteria does this change in the traditional EU stance on this issue obey?

What does the Commission estimate the losses to the sector at?

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

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/853

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission was led to adopt new rules on the description, designation and protection of certain wine
sector products in order to avert the possibility of a World Trade Organisation (WTO) panel, which would
have represented a serious threat to the European policy on wine labelling.

As referred to in the written question, following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the
World Trade Organisation several third countries sent their comments and expressed reservations to the
WTO. Two consultations were held in Geneva on the matter. The exclusive protection of certain
traditional terms (part B) was regarded by the third countries as a new intellectual property right on the
part of the European Union under the TRIPS Agreement, in addition to that of geographical indications.
A WTO panel along those lines could have jeopardised EU policy on the protection of geographical
indications and was therefore to be avoided.

In the light of the comments made by third countries, the Commission decided to make a number of
changes to the Regulation in question. Those changes mainly relate to the possibility for third countries to
use certain traditional terms in compliance with the same rules as apply to Member States.

Account also had to be taken of the fact that several third countries do not have a centralised regulatory
system for the wine sector. The European requirements on the legislative system were therefore amended
and the ‘regulation’ principle was replaced by the ‘applicable rules’ principle. Such rules include those
issued by representative professional organisations. A definition of ‘representativeness’ was also inserted.

It is also important to stress that Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 (2) makes no reference to the two
types of traditional names, unlike Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002, but only to the possibility
for the Commission to adopt standards on traditional indications in accordance with the provisions in
force in the Member States.

The new conditions for third countries’ use of Community traditional names are equivalent to the previous
conditions of use under Annex III, part A to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

According to Article 1(10) of Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 (3) amending Article 37(1)(e) of Regulation (EC)
No 753/2002, those conditions include the following:

(a)

the third countries must make a substantiated request to the Commission and forward the relevant
rules justifying recognition of the traditional indications;

(b)

the language of the traditional indication must be the official language of the third country which
makes the request, and the indication in that language must have been used for at least 10 years;

(c)

if the language of the traditional indication is not the official language, its use must be provided for by
the legislation of the third country in question; in that case, the traditional indication in that language
must have been used continuously for at least 25 years;

(d) other criteria stipulated by the same Regulation, such as the indication’s specific nature and distinctive

character and removing the possibility of deception, must likewise be met.

In the specific case of the Spanish traditional terms ‘Reserva’, ‘Gran Reserva’ and ‘Crianza’ referred to in the
written question to the Commission, the conditions governing their use in the Community by third

C 84 E/854

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

countries remain unchanged, since those terms were already listed in Annex III, Part A to Regulation (EC)
No 753/2002.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council
Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine
sector products, OJ L 118, 4.5.2002.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in wine,

OJ L 179, 14.7.1999.

(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (cid:1)

OJ L 55, 24.2.2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0946)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0712/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Increasing the Portuguese annual sugar quota

(10 March 2004)

On a recent visit to DAI (cid:1) Sociedade de Desenvolvimento agro-industrial, SA (cid:1) in Coruche, Portugal,
I learned that in 2002, the company succeeded in obtaining from Portuguese farmers all the raw material
necessary to produce mainland Portugal’s allocated quota of white sugar.

But the annual quota assigned to DAI, some 70 million tonnes of white beet sugar, accounts for a mere
23 % of the Portuguese market’s needs. Currently, DAI has the capacity to produce over 100 000 tonnes of
white sugar, and in the Alqueva dam area, suitable conditions exist for Portuguese farmers to produce
more sugar beet.

What measures are being investigated, given the proposed review of the COM in sugar, and the need to
raise mainland Portugal’s quota to 100 000 tonnes?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

In accordance with Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 on the common organisation of
the markets in the sugar sector (1), refineries established in Portugal are guaranteed supply by preferential
imports of raw cane sugar from African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries, comprising a quantity of
imported at an average price of almost EUR 500/tonne,
almost 300 000 tonnes (t). That quantity,
corresponds to Portugal’s sugar consumption.

That provision enables the refineries to continue operating on the basis of Portugal’s traditional supply of
sugar from certain African countries.

Although not previously a producer, since accession Portugal has also had a beet sugar production quota
of some 70 000 tonnes. Despite relatively high production costs, cultivation has become established and
gradually expanded such that from now on the quota will be attained.

Concurrently with the expansion of production, Portugal’s sugar exports have increased from zero to their
present figure of 90 000 tonnes.

Almost half that quantity is exported to third countries with Community refunds whose unit amount
currently exceeds EUR 500/tonne. The refunds make it possible to reduce the price of surplus sugar on the
Portuguese market to the world price level of less than EUR 200/tonne. The balance of surplus sugar is
sent to other Community countries, mainly Spain.

The Portuguese market’s specific supply characteristics are such that any increase in the beet sugar
production quota would result in the need to increase Community sugar exports with refunds, which
cannot be justified in budgetary terms.

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001.