Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/690 |

---

(2004/C 84 E/0776)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0871/04

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

(15 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:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | the port wine-producing area has always used the descriptions ‘tawny’, ‘vintage’, and ‘ruby’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Madeira wine-producers have also always used the descriptions ‘canteiro’, ‘frasqueira’ and ‘reserva velha’; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | both these wines have consolidated their quality and international image using these expressions; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | 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; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | 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; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | these non-tariff measures include the protection of designations of origin, trademarks, etc.; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | the WTO negotiations have been suspended since the collapse of the Cancun Round last September; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in this context the European Union must not or should not make any concessions outside the negotiating context of the WTO. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Can the Commission say what induced it to adopt new rules on wine labelling outside the WTO 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 — 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)](#ntr1-CE2004084EN.01069001-E0001) 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)](#ntr2-CE2004084EN.01069001-E0002) amending Article37(l)(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; in such cases the traditional term in that language must have been used continuously for at least 25 years; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| (d) | that the term be specific and distinctive and that there is no risk of consumers being misled. |

In the case of the Portuguese traditional terms the Honourable Member mentions a number 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.

---

[Top](#document1)