WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1109/98 by Luigi FLORIO to the Commission. Protection of European wines with designations of origin
19. 11. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 354/63 established that there has been any infringement, any publicity would be premature and could jeopardise the dialogue with the Member State, making it more difficult to subsequently resolve any infringement. In other words, Article 169 letters must be clearly distinguished from reasoned opinions, in which the Commission sets out its final position and which are usually publicised. There are, however, two exceptions to this procedure. It does not apply: › where Member States have failed to notify the Commission of national measures implementing directives or have failed to comply with rulings of the Court of Justice; this is because the matters are already in the public domain; › where the Commission decides that publicity is necessary because the issue is already being publicly discussed and there is a need to stop false rumours spreading, in which case the decision to go public or not is taken on a case-by-case basis. It should also be noted that where the infringement procedure has been triggered by a complaint, the party who made the complaint is kept informed at each stage in the procedure, including the sending of the Article 169 letter. It goes without saying that the Commission is always prepared to respond to parliamentary questions on specific cases. (98/C 354/105) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1109/98 by Luigi Florio (PPE) to the Commission (30 March 1998) Subject: Protection of European wines with designations of origin Is the Commission aware that certain winegrowers in the United States produce wine that is then marketed using the names of some of the most famous European, and in particular Italian, wines with designations of origin? This problem is due to the fact that there are no instruments for the legal protection of wines with designations of origin in non-European countries which have not signed the Lisbon Agreement in the context of the GATT Agreements. Does the Commission agree that it should take measures to prevent the problem from spreading and thereby causing extremely serious damage to the European wine-growing sector by undermining the image of our most prestigious wines and their presence on the internal and international markets? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 April 1998) The Commission is aware of the matter brought to its attention by the Honourable Member. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs), signed by the Community in 1994, requires WTO members to protect the geographical designations of other members. Exceptions are provided for, however, particularly under Article 24(4), which permits WTO members who have been using continuously for at least 10 year prior to 15 April 1994, or in good faith, specific geographical designations belonging to other members and identifying wines or spirits with persons living in those geographical areas, to continue to do so in a similar way. While seeing to it that its rights under the WTO are respected, the Community has the priority objective in the wine-growing sector also of concluding bilateral agreements to improve the protection for geographical designations as provided for in Article 24(1) of the agreement. Concerning the matter notified by the Honourable Member, the Commission is making every effort to ensure that negotiations can be conducted on this aspect with the United States