WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Marking of PDO and PGI products.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/13 The Regulation was adopted unanimously by the Member States and received the assent of the 3. European Parliament. As explained above, the Italian proposal was considered inadmissible not because of the new criteria as such but rather because it was not in compliance with Article 4(4) of the Regulation. 4. The criteria laid down in Article 4(5) and (6) of the Regulation do not penalise any Member State. (1) OJ L 161, 26. 6. 1999. (2000/C 280 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2171/99 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Interception of telecommunications by British Intelligence Services In the light of reports that the British Intelligence Services are intercepting all telecommunications to and from Ireland, will the Commission seek to establish what the implications of this action are for the political cohesion of the Union? Further, what are the implications for the right of commercial undertakings to engage freely in commu- nicating internationally and within the EU, and what are the implications for individual citizens engaged in personal or commercially sensitive communications? Can the Commission ask the British authorities if the reports are actually true and, if so, if the British are spying on all other Member States of the EU in a similar way? Could the Commission also state whether such activities are in violation of any EU law? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (27 January 2000) The Commission has no knowledge of the matters to which the Honourable Member refers. In any event, the Commission takes the view that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the question asked, which is a matter solely for the national authorities concerned. The Commission nonetheless remains vigilant in defence of Community interests, and condemns any and all threats to the integrity of communications within or exchanged between institutions, commercial enterprises or by individual citizens engaged in communicating internationally and within the Union. (2000/C 280 E/013) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2175/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Marking of PDO and PGI products Several bodies licensed by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Resources to certify PDO products and to append the PDO identifying stamp on those products use the services of the respective Consorzi di tutela (organisations for the protection of individual products) in the capacity of outside bodies. Apparently, the equipment for marking the products (branding or other methods) to show that they have been certified to be PDO is not therefore in the possession of the body authorised to certify such C 280 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 products but, on the contrary, held by organisations which have no licence to certify them. The procedure which has been adopted is not in accordance with the general and specific provisions of European Standard 45011, with which the certifying body must comply in order to be recognised at European and national level as qualified and reliable for the purpose of implementing the PDO certifying system. On the basis of the provisions of Regulations EC/2081/92 (1) and 2082/92 (2) the Consorzi di tutela do not therefore fulfil the requirements laid down in European Standard 45011, as they are not detached bodies and unable to guarantee impartiality with regard to inspections. In addition, private certifying bodies are, by using the services of impartiality and detached status, characteristics which are essential in the case of bodies whose function is to monitor compliance with the law. losing their independence, the Consorzi, 1. Is the Commission aware of the facts described above? Can the agreements governing the relationship between private bodies and the Consorzi di tutela be 2. disclosed and/or given to anyone asking for copies of them, in accordance with the basic principles of transparency? Is it permissible for the Consorzi di tutela, being bodies which do not have the necessary 3. qualifications, to be engaged in activities and services which are strictly the responsibility of the private certifying bodies? 4. Does the Commission regard as lawful the provisions which, on the basis of an agreement between the certifying body and the Consorzio di tutela, require even persons who are not members of any Consorzio di tutela to apply to those Consorzi di tutela for the purpose of obtaining the PDO marking for a product? In view of the above-mentioned inconsistencies, does the Commission consider it advisable to take 5. measures against the Italian Government for directly causing enormous financial damage to a section of producers who, though complying exactly with the regulations governing production, are obliged to pay a competing organisation for the purpose of obtaining the marking of their products and are in some cases actually deprived of the mark of conformity? (1) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. (2) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 9. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (20 January 2000) The Commission has received no information from the Italian authorities regarding the points raised 1. by the Honourable Member. The Commission is also unaware of any agreements between private bodies and the Consorzi di 2. tutelaí, an area governed exclusively by national law. 3. As regards the possibility of employing Consorzi di tutelaí for activities and services that fall strictly within the competence of private certification bodies, the Commission draws the Honourable Memberís attention to its answer to Written Question E-1845/99 (1), which states: As from 1 January 1998, in order to be approved by the Member States for the purpose of this Regulation, private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011 of 26 June 1989 (the standard was amended on 18 February 1998). The Commission feels it would be difficult for the strict requirements in this standard to be met by a áconsorzio di tutelaí, which is usually made up of the same producers who would be subject to the inspection required under the above Article 10 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs also stipulates that if an inspection structure uses the services of another body for some inspections that body must offer the same guarantees referred 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/15 to in Article 10(3). In that event the designated inspection authorities and/or approved private bodies are to continue to be responsible vis-à-vis the Member State for all inspections. The only conditions to be met for the lawful use of a name registered as a protected designation of 4. indication (PGI) are those set out in the specifications. If the origin (PDO) or protected geographical specifications stipulate that the marking of a particular product is to be carried out by a given body, those provisions are clearly lawful, whether or not the applicant is a member of the body responsible for marking. 5. The Commission is not aware of any anomalies in the inspection arrangements. It wishes to remind the Honourable Member, as it stated in its reply to his Written Question E-2066/99 (2), that Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 gives the national authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Member States must withdraw approval from inspection bodies where the conditions referred to in Article 10(2) and (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 are no longer fulfilled. In passing, the Commission wishes to point out to the Honourable Member that in the past it has considered at length the concerns and objections expressed, following a complaint from operators involved in the making of Grana padanoí cheese. That complaint was shelved by a formal decision of 13 October 1999. (1) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 27. (2) OJ C 225 E, 8. 8. 2000, p. 46. (2000/C 280 E/014) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2176/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Construction of an underground railway in Brescia, Italy The Commune of Brescia intends to build an underground railway. By Municipal Decision No 137 of 26 July 1999 it approved a preliminary plan for the construction of the underground railway although it is not yet clear what funds are available for the work. In fact, although the cost of the underground, which can be estimated on the basis of similar European projects/constructions, is about 1215 billion lire, only the first instalment of 165 billion lire is available (1). The choice of an underground railway is incompatible with the Master Development and Town Planning Scheme and the Urban Traffic Scheme recently adopted by the Commune which provide for a light tramcar network which would be much more suitable and justifiable in the case of a medium-sized town (200 000 inhabitants) such as Brescia. The adoption of an above-ground public transport system running on right of way has been, inter alia, confirmed by further studies commissioned by the Commune from an English company following the approval of the Master Development and Town Planning scheme. These further studies led to plans for two bus services/routes running on right of way (Linee di Alta Mobilità ü high-mobility routes) and the contract/specifications for implementing these plans has recently been allocated/drawn up. That network, which should come into operation in two yearsí time, will serve the same customers as would the underground railway. The Brescia Greens lodged an appeal on 15. 10. 1999 against the municipal decision of the Commune approving the plan for an underground railway and a similar appeal was sent to the Interministerial Economic Planning Committee on 27. 9. 1999. impact assessment, 85/337/EEC (2) and 97/11/EC (3), lists Annex II to the directives on environmental underground railways among the projects where a State must examine whether the assessment procedure should be applied. The Court of Justice recently ruled that in the case of the works listed in Annex II of those directives, a Member State is not entitled to exempt or withdraw a project from the environmental impact assessment procedure where its environmental impact is substantial, in particular because of its nature, size or location (4). Given its size and location, this plan for an underground railway must have a substantial impact. The purpose of the assessment must be, inter alia, also to take into consideration alternative solutions and to indicate the main reasons for making that choice rather than any other (5)