WRITTEN QUESTION P-0871/04 by José Pacheco Pereira (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Distortion of competition in the wine sector.
Date: 2004-03-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, TRIPS, common commercial policy, designation of origin, fortified wine, labelling, product designation, restriction on competition, viticulture

C 84 E/690

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Whether a specific national measure fulfils these criteria or not, depends on its precise content, the
concrete situations affected by it and the conditions to fulfil
in order to comply with the relevant
provision.

In general terms, the Commission would like to note that a requirement to obtain work permits for
nationals of Member States is not compatible with Article 49 of the EC Treaty. There are no transitional
arrangement with regard the application by Italy of the Directive 96/71/EC and the transitional measures
provided for by the Accession Treaty are not applicable with regard the relation between the current
Member States.

According to the information at the disposal of the Commission, Italian legislation (in particular Article 4
of decree-law No 72 of 25 February 2000 and Article 2 of Law No 196 of 24 June 1997) obliges
undertakings supplying temporary work to a user undertaking established in Italy to obtain registration on
a list kept for that purpose by the competent department of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security.
To be registered on that list, those companies must obtain a licence, which is granted initially on a
temporary basis, then, after the business has operated for two years, for an unlimited period. The granting
of that licence is in turn subject to meeting certain conditions aiming at the protection of workers. A
licence is however not required, if a temporary employment undertaking can show that it operates under
an equivalent administrative measure issued by the competent authority of a Member State other than
Italy.

As the Court of Justice has underlined in its case law, the provision of manpower is a particularly sensitive
matter from the occupational and social point of view, affecting both relations on the labour market and
the lawful interests of the workforce concerned. Consequently, the Court has considered it permissible,
under Community law, and amounting to a legitimate choice of policy pursued in the public interest,
to subject the provision of manpower to a system of licensing, provided that the host State takes into
account the evidence and guarantees already furnished by the provider of services for the pursuit of his
activities in the Member State of his establishment.

The Italian Decree-law No 72 of 25 February 2000, transposing Directive 96/71/EC, does not contain
additional authorisation requirements with regard to the transnational hiring-out of workers who are
nationals of a Member State, and the Commission is not aware of other parts of legislation prescribing
work permits for such workers.

(1) OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0776)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0871/04

by José Pacheco Pereira (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Distortion of competition in the wine sector

(15 March 2004)

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;

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/691

(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?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2004)

On the reasons for our adoption of new labelling rules, following notification of Regulation No 753/
2002 (1) to the WTO a number of wine-producing third countries voiced severe criticisms. Consultations
were then held at Geneva to clarify the content of the Regulation with them.

These countries considered our policy on traditional terms to be a further example of the Union’s attempts,
as with geographical indications, to obtain exclusive intellectual property right protection covered by the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. The Union’s policy on protection of
geographical indications might well have been endangered and the risk increased of a WTO panel against
our entire wine labelling policy.

In the light of these countries’ observations we decided to forestall the serious threat emerging to the legal
strength of the present labelling legislation by amending the Regulation so that traditional terms would be
protected in a non-discriminatory way for both wines produced in the Community and imported wines.

The requirements now in force for third country use of traditional terms are equivalent to those in force
beforehand for use of the traditional terms of List A in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 753/2002.

Among these requirements (see Article 1(10) of Regulation No 316/2004 (2) amending Article 37(1)(e) of
Regulation No 753/2002) are:

(a)

the third country must present a substantiated request to the Commission and provide the justificatory
data for recognition of the traditional term;

(b)

the language of the traditional term must be the official language of the third country and the term in
that language must have been used for at least ten years;

(c)

if the language of the traditional term is not the official language its use must be provided for in the
country’s legislation;
language must have been used
continuously for at least 25 years;

in such cases the traditional

term in that

(d)

that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled.

C 84 E/692

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

the Portuguese traditional

terms the Honourable Member mentions a number of
In the case of
requirements must therefore made if they are to be used in the Community by third countries. Thus for
a term such as Ruby, Tawny, Vintage, Canteiro or Frasquiera to be used on a liqueur wine other than Port
or Madeira, in the first place English or Portuguese as appropriate must be the official language of the third
country and the term must have been used for at least ten years, or English or Portuguese must be a
second language recognised in the third country’s legislation and the term must have been used for at least
25 years. Secondly, the term must be specific and distinctive and not such as to mislead the consumer
where the wine is sold in Europe. There must also be some tradition behind use of the term in the third
country.

In the case of Reserva velha the requirements for use by third countries in the Community are unchanged,
since this term already appeared in List A of Annex III 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) Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 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 55, 24.2.2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0777)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0872/04

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(15 March 2004)

Subject: Precautionary principle

On 18 January, ENEL (Italian national electricity company) submitted to the Commune of Rapolla
(Basilicata, Italy) a request for authorisation to build a high-voltage 380 kV electricity line between Matera
and S. Sofia.

On 10 May 1990 ENEL requested authorisation for an alternative plan, which would bring the line closer
to housing areas in the Commune of Rapolla.

In 1994 a number of Rapolla residents took legal action against the building of the electricity line on the
grounds that it was dangerously close to housing areas.

On 28 May 2003 the Potenza Court of Appeal ruled against the building of the section of electricity line
to which the complaint referred, partly on the basis of an experts’ report which had highlighted the
increased risk of child leukaemia arising from prolonged exposure to high-level (0,3-0,4 T) electromagnetic
fields. The consultants estimated that the exposure levels at average current intensity levels exceeded 0,4 T
(limit established in the implementing decree of 8 July 2003 relating to framework law 36/2001).

A draft presidential decree authorising the building and operation of the alternative plan for the electricity
line has been submitted to the President of the Republic for his signature.

Does the Commission not consider that this proposal is contrary to the ‘precautionary principle’ laid down
by the Maastricht Treaty?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

At EU level, a Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hertz (Hz) to 300 gigahertz (GHz)) was adopted in July 1999, based on
the guidelines of
the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection. The Recom-
mendation sets out a system of basic restrictions and reference levels for overall public exposure. The level