WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/04 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. European hydrogen platform.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU research policy, applied research, fuel cell, hydrogen, research and development, technological change

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/205

The Commission is not aware of Dutch tax legislation that provides for any particular way of
6.
circumventing other countries’ rules. As mentioned earlier, the Netherlands has taken steps to prevent the
potential abuse of the Dutch system through the introduction of more stringent anti-abuse rules in the
framework of the Code of Conduct for business taxation.

7.
As part of the Code of Conduct exercise, the tax rules of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba were
also subjected to scrutiny. The result is that both the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are now required to
remove their harmful tax measures i.e. the tax advantages that the Council considered to be harmful. The
advantage for a Netherlands resident of doing business in the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba would
therefore only arise now from the fact that there is an agreement between the three parts of the Kingdom
of the Netherlands to prevent double taxation which is quite similar to the bilateral tax conventions
preventing double taxation that Member States and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) member countries negotiate with each other and with other countries.

8. Member States are free to design their tax systems as long as the rules comply with the EU acquis,
notably the state aid rules, the fundamental freedoms in the EC Treaty and the principles of the Code of
Conduct for business taxation.

(2004/C 88 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0686/04

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: European hydrogen platform

The creation of the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform is to be welcomed, but
surprisingly not one of the 35 members of the platform’s Advisory Council is Portuguese.

The Commission may recall that the University of the Azores’ marine environment and technologies
laboratory is a pioneering centre for the development of technologies linked to the exploitation of
hydrogen.

Does the Commission perhaps consider that research carried out in one of the outermost regions is less
valuable than that carried out by the large countries represented on the Advisory Council?

Does it not consider that all the relevant partners should be included in an initiative of this kind,
irrespective of their size?

Will the Commission consider expanding the Advisory Council to include, for example, the University of
the Azores’ marine environment and technologies laboratory?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(21 April 2004)

The Technology Platform for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells, recently launched in January 2004, is an initiative
that intends to include all actors and activities in Europe, working in advancing the technologies which
may lead to a future Hydrogen Economy. The Advisory Council (AC) is one of the key bodies of the
Platform since it will steer and guide its various components and actors.

The first Advisory Council has been elected for an initial period of 18 months and is composed by high
level personalities representing different players of the economy and society in Europe,
including the
research community and main industrial sectors actively involved in the development of the relevant
technologies.

C 88 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Although none of the present members of the AC is Portuguese, other Portuguese stakeholders will
certainly be in the various bodies and structures of the Platform, such as the Member States Mirror Group,
Steering Panels and Initiative Groups and more importantly the Platform operations, where all relevant on-
going activities expressing an interest in being involved are welcome. The Commission takes note of the
possible interest of the ‘Laboratorio de Ambiente Marínho e Tecnologias, da Universidade dos Açores’.

(2004/C 88 E/0214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0724/04

by María Herranz García (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject: Rules on labelling wines

After years of negotiating with the USA and other third countries on protecting Community wine
appellations and radical EU opposition to any usurping of these appellations by third countries, the
Commission has finally decided that, despite all the efforts made in the past, it is giving in to external
pressure. It has legitimised this usurpatory behaviour by adopting an amendment to the rules on wine
labelling in the Management Committee, despite the fact that the main producer countries voted against.

From now on, any third country that can prove that for at least ten years it has been usurping traditional
terms such as gran reserva and crianza cannot only continue to do so, but can now market its products,
using these terms, in the EU.

Why has the Commission made this 180 o turn, which could well weaken our position in the WTO
negotiations to safeguard our geographical appellations? What pay-off does the Commission expect from
this decision?

While it is true that some countries have lodged complaints with the WTO against the Community rules
on wine labelling adopted in 2002, why did the Commission not at the very least wait to find out what
the WTO has to say on the issue?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 April 2004)

We adopted 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. This would have been a serious
threat to European wine labelling policy.

Following notification of Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 (1) to the World Trade Organisation, several third
countries sent their observations and expressed reservations to the WTO. Two consultations were held in
Geneva. Exclusive protection of certain traditional terms (List B) was regarded by the third countries as a
new intellectual property right of the Union covered by the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights (additional to that for geographical indications). A WTO panel might well have
jeopardised EU policy on protection of geographical indications and was to be avoided.

In the light of the third country observations we decided to make a number of changes to the Regulation.
Primarily the changes give third countries the possibility of using certain traditional terms subject to
compliance with the same rules as those for 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
legislative system requirements were therefore amended and the concept of ‘regulation’ replaced by that of
‘applicable rules’. These rules include those issued by representative trade organisations and these
organisations were themselves defined.