WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission. Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94.
C 225 E/46 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 The study reveals that the proportion of people receiving such assistance varies widely across the EU Member States assessed therein. Paradoxically, in some instances the standard of living enjoyed by the recipients of these social security benefits matches that of the remainder of the population in the country concerned and in other instances even exceeds the average. The impact of the various benefits on reducing the number of ápoor peopleí is very uneven, since the extent to which the said benefits are targeted at this sector of the population varies considerably from one Member State to another. Furthermore, in some cases the other social security benefits paid out to citizens are virtually on a par with the pensions they receive, whereas in other cases they amount to far less. Can the Commission corroborate these facts? If so, what is its assessment of the extent to which the treatment received by EU citizens in the welfare sector differs? Can the Commission say what precautions it will take to reduce these disparities? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) This analysis on the redistributive effect of social benefits in the Community was undertaken by the Commission in collaboration with the French ministry of employment and solidarity. It is based on the (ECHP), which is the only Community 1995 wave of harmonised source for data on income in general and social transfers in particular. The ECHP is a survey based on a sample of some 60 500 Community households (170 000 individuals). the European Community household panel The analysis confirms that on average about a quarter of the total income of Europeans is made up of social transfers; pensions guarantee a standard of living to those drawing pensions which is close to the standard of living for the population as a whole; social benefits other than pensions are intensively targeted at the sector of the population with the lowest incomes and succeed, as a result, in reducing the proportion of people living on a low income by a quarter or more in most Member States. The higher inequality and poverty before transfers and the higher the share of such social transfers in total income, the higher their impact on reducing poverty and disparities in income. These findings illustrate and confirm the important redistributive effect of social transfers and benefits as an important principle of the European social model. Moreover, as data include cash transfers only (and not benefits in kind), the redistributive impact of social protection is likely to be even higher. The analysis also highlights significant differences between Member States and the need for strengthening cooperation at Community level. The Commission has proposed A concerted strategy for modernising social protectioní (1), based on dialogue, exchange of experience and evaluation of ongoing policy developments, to guide future action and cooperation in this field. (1) COM(1999) 347 final. (2000/C 225 E/047) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2066/99 by Umberto Bossi (TDI) to the Commission (12 November 1999) Subject: Private storage aid for cheese under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94 For several years now, the Italian Ministry for Agriculture and the bodies coming under its authority have been discriminating against some producers of PDO Grana padano cheese by preventing them from 8. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 225 E/47 benefiting directly from the private storage aid available under Regulation (EEC) No 2659/94 (1). This has led to substantial loss of income for such producers and hampered their ability to compete freely in the marketing of their products. Even after the entry into force of new Community and national provisions on PDO and PGI products, the áconsorzi di tutelaí (regulatory bodies) have, against payment, continued to certify cheeses subject to such certification as being of sound, merchantable quality, without having the right to do so and, furthermore, without inspecting them when they are placed in storage. This situation has continued even after Ministry of Agriculture authorisation was granted to private certification firms and the Central Anti-Fraud Office. Given the above, would the Commission state: 1. whether it is aware of this situation; 2. whether individual producers or groups of producers may benefit directly from the aid available under Regulation (EEC) 2659/94; 3. whether the precedence given to the áconsorzi di tutelaí over the authorised private certification firms should not be deemed to undermine the independence and freedom to compete of those firms; 4. whether the áconsorzi di tutelaí meet the requirement that bodies responsible for certifying PDO and PGI products must be áthird partiesí; 5. whether it would not agree that action should be taken against the Italian Government in view of the manifest irregularities which have arisen during implementation of the provisions of Regulations (EEC) 2081/92 (2) and 2659/94? (1) OJ L 284, 1. 11. 1994, p. 26. (2) OJ L 208, 24. 7. 1992, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1999) In the absence of concrete, detailed information on the matter, the Commission is not in a position to give a full and final response regarding the complaints made by the Honourable Member. Nevertheless, the Commission wishes to clarify the following points concerning the relationship between 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, and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2659/ 94 of 31 October 1994 on detailed rules for the granting of private storage aid for Grana padano, Parmigiano-Reggiano and Provolone cheeses, cited by the Honourable Member, as regards the protected designation of origin ágrana padanoí. Under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, An inspection structure may comprise one or more designated inspection authorities and/or private bodies approved for that purpose by the Member Stateí. The designated inspection authorities must offer adequate guarantees of objectivity and impartiality and have at their disposal the necessary staff and technical resources. In addition, from 1 January 1998 private bodies must fulfil the requirements laid down in standard EN 45011. However, fulfilling the requirements of this standard does not necessarily confer on a private body the right to certify products with the ágrana padanoí protected designation of origin. Article 10 gives national authorities a certain flexibility when designating inspection authorities for each protected name. Conse- quently, the Commission could not require the Italian authorities to approve any private body that fulfils requirements laid down in standard EN 45011, as meeting this standard does not in itself confer any rights. The Italian authorities have designated the private body CSQA (Certificazione qualità agroalimentare) to carry out the inspection of production of this cheese. Quite clearly, if the cheese were not inspected by CSQA, it could not bear the ágrana padanoí name and consequently no aid under Regulation (EC) No 2659/94 could be claimed. C 225 E/48 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 8. 8. 2000 In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2659/94, private storage aid for grana padano cheeses may be granted to any natural or legal person able to prove ownership of the cheeses in private storage and complying with the regulation, and in particular the undertakings mentioned in Article 3 point (d). If the Honourable Member considers that these requirements were not fulfilled, the Commission would be grateful if he could pass on any concrete evidence to prove this, to allow the appropriate proceedings to be initiated within the limits of and in accordance with the powers available to the Commission under the principle of subsidiarity. (2000/C 225 E/048) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2087/99 by Dirk Sterckx (ELDR) to the Commission (19 November 1999) Subject: Application of the Packaging Directive to ornamental plant growing is not possible to decide on the basis of either Directive 94/62/EC (1) or of the Commissionís It interpretative memorandum of 10 June 1999 whether flower pots do, or do not, constitute packaging within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that Directive or, indeed, whether they fall within the scope of the Directive at all. As a result, each Member State has to decide itself which flower pots are clearly functional and which are used primarily as packaging. The situation thus varies from one Member State to another. Nevertheless, the purpose of the Packaging Directive, as specified in Article 1 thereof, is to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition. Is the Commission not worried that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to serious distortion of competition amongst ornamental plant growers in the various Member States? Will it clarify whether flower pots that are not áintended to remain with the plant for the whole of its lifeí do, or do not, constitute packaging? Is it possible to interpret the Directive in such a way that no flower pots of any kind are included within its scope? Will the Commission indicate which Member States regard flower pots as ápackagingí within the meaning of Directive 94/62/EC, and which do not? (1) OJ L 365, 31. 12. 1994, p. 10. Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission (17 January 2000) The definition of packaging has proved difficult to interpret in certain specific cases, such as flower pots. The Commission is fully aware that differing interpretations of the concept of packaging could lead to market distortion. For that reason, the Commission has been working on the issue with experts of Member States. The outcome of these discussions is that it would be useful to complement the current definition by a new technical guidance annexe to the Directive. This technical guidance would be based on the results of the exchange of opinions held in the frame of a structured dialogue between all those involved in the packaging chain ü Member States, industry, environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and consumers. The definition of packaging in Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, can only be interpreted by the Court of justice. An exhaustive list of the different interpretation of flower pots as ápackagingí in the Member States is not currently available