WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Italian decree concerning the dairy sector.
C 374 E/144 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 Every medicinal product of whatsoever origin must comply with specific rules before it can be marketed or administred in the European Community. According to the principles laid down in Article 4 of Directive 81/851/EEC, no veterinary medicinal product may be marketed in a Member State and no veterinary medicinal product may be administered to animals unless authorization has previously been issued by a competent authority. Although Directive 92/74/EEC provides for a simplified registration procedure for homeopathic veterinary medicinal products Article 7 of this Directive explicitly excludes products which are intended for food producing animals from this simplified procedure. Both phytotherapeutic and homeopathic medicinal products for food producing animals must be authorized in accordance with the provisions of Directive 81/851/EEC, including the provisions concerning proof of therapeutic effect. The above-mentioned rules apply to all persons who place on the market and administer veterinary medicinal products to animals. The Council shall keep this situation under review and, in particular, shall examine any new proposals which the Commission may choose to submit. (2000/C 374 E/170) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/00 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (6 March 2000) Subject: Italian decree concerning the dairy sector The Italian Government has issued Decree No 8 of 4 February 2000 concerning, inter alia, áthe temporary regulation of the dairy sectorí. Paragraph 5 states that in the event of the purchaser failing to pay the additional levy the regional and provincial authorities shall forcibly collect it even from the producer, whether or not the latter is entitled to reimbursement from an insolvent purchaser or one who fails to fulfil his obligations. This provision is surprising as it stands, unbelievable if it refers to the purchaser of milk as defined in Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1), and blatantly distorts the gist of the contents and recitals of the Regulation. Can the Commission say: 1. what it thinks of the rules already introduced in Italy by virtue of the above-mentioned decree; 2. whether the concept of the purchaser as the sole and central instrument for the management and collection of the levy remains valid in Italy following this decree; 3. whether the Italian provision does not constitute a dangerous precedent for the implementation of the whole Community system; 4. whether, in view of this provision, producers should refuse to be subjected to the levy in order to safeguard themselves and their businesses from the probability of a compulsory twofold levy; 5. whether the provision introduced by the Italian authorities might not induce unscrupulous purchasers to avoid paying the levy, with impunity, appropriating the producerís funds for long periods of time pending the outcome of endless legal proceedings typical of Italy. (1) OJ L 405, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1. 28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/145 Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (30 March 2000) The Decree of 4 February 2000 cited by the Honourable Member was received by the Commission only recently. The text of the Decree is currently being translated and scrutinised by the relevant department. As soon as this review is finished, the Commission will be in a position to answer the Honourable Memberís questions. (2000/C 374 E/171) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0740/00 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission (6 March 2000) Subject: De Zaak Havana Club/WTO, Bacardi-Martini versus Pernod Ricard 1. Can the Commission explain why it is pushing so much for a WTO Panel procedure in the Article 133 Committee concerning the legitimacy of Section 211(b) of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 under the TRIPS Agreement, when several Member States have raised their doubts as to the need for such a Panel procedure? 2. Is the willingness of the Commission to support a private conflict of a commercial company not contrary to the new policy of the Commission to avoid blurring of interests in its decision-making process? Can the Commission explain why the dispute between two commercial companies justifies the heavy 3. judicial procedure of the WTO panel procedure? Does the Commission think that asking for a WTO Panel 4. appropriate timing, bearing in mind the delicate trade relationships with the USA at the moment? in this particular matter is a sign of Can the Commission confirm that all means for an amicable solution have been exploited in this 5. particular matter? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (24 March 2000) 1. Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 was adopted in October 1998. After detailed analysis, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates certain provisions of intellectual property rights (WTO TRIPs) agreement, notably its national treatment provisions, trademark provisions and enforcement provisions. This analysis was shared by all Member States. the World Trade Organisation trade related aspects of The Community and its Member States raised the incompatibility of Section 211 with the WTO TRIPs agreement with the United States on various occasions, including at the past three Community-United States summits and within the WTO TRIPs Council in order to find an amicable solution to the matter. However, the American administration constantly refused to engage in any substantive discussion. The Community and its Member States requested consultations under the WTO dispute settlement under- standing in July 1999. Two rounds of consultations were held in September and December 1999, but the United States maintained the view that Section 211 is compatible with the United States international obligations. Having evaluated the outcome of the WTO consultations and the economic and political interests involved, the establishment of a WTO panel on this issue in order to ensure the proper application of the WTO TRIPs agreement by the United States. To this end, the Commission sought, in conformity with the established rules, the opinion of the Member States. the Commission came to the conclusion that it was appropriate to request