WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Counterfeiting of ceramic goods produced in the Province of Viterbo.
C 219 E/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Article 2(2) of the Regulation states that aid granted indirectly includes all forms of aid to shipowners or to third parties which are available as aid for the building or conversion of ships such as credit facilities, guarantees and tax concessions. The Commission notes that the interest subsidy scheme notified by the Finnish authorities, to which the Honourable Member refers, concerns an interest subsidy to be granted by the ministry of Transport so as to lower the interest costs of loans taken for the acquisition of new cargo vessels ordered by Finnish shipping companies in 1999. Consequently, the notified scheme concerns an interest subsidy to be granted to shipowners for acquisition of new cargo vessels. Therefore, it falls under Article 2(2) of the Regulation and is considered as aid to shipbuilding under Article 2(1) of the Regulation. For this reason, the compatibility of the aid with the common market is to be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Regulation. The Commission underlines that it is indeed its aim to promote and support the Community maritime interests, including the Nordic maritime interests, by encouraging the development of safe and environ- mentally friendly ships in accordance with the principles expressed in the Community guidelines on state aid to maritime industry. However, this policy cannot override the Community rules on state aid. The state aid measures planned by Member States to promote this policy have to respect the Community rules adopted in this field. Consequently, since in the specific case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the applicable legal instrument is Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98, it is this Regulation which defines the conditions under which the compatibility of the aid in question shall be assessed by the Commission. (1) Council Directive 90/684/EEC on aid to shipbuilding, OJ L 380, 31. 12. 1990. (2) OJ L 202, 18. 7. 1998. (2000/C 219 E/133) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2157/99 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Counterfeiting of ceramic goods produced in the Province of Viterbo Several producers of ceramic goods in the Province of Viterbo have complained about the counterfeiting by Egyptian companies of some articles of sanitary ware. Copies of this kind are flooding the Italian and European markets, on which they are gaining a hold owing to extremely low production costs and, thereby, to unfair competition with Italian companies, to whom they are causing serious financial damage. They are therefore a potential threat to jobs. Even the Egyptian Ambassador to Italy, who was alerted following a complaint which Italian producers made to the Rome police, has acknowledged that those producers have a case. Given the above, would the Commission state: 1. whether it would not agree that such competition from Egyptian companies is extremely unfair; 2. whether it would not agree that such counterfeiting of Italian products is in breach of current including Directive legislation on the development and protection of intellectual property rights, 93/98 (1); 3. whether it would not agree that the above behaviour is in breach of the moral rights of the makers; 4. whether it would not agree that it should approach the Egyptian authorities with a view to obtaining for further information on the above matter and, possibly, calling on them to ensure respect international intellectual property law; 5. its general views on the matter. (1) OJ L 290, 24. 11. 1993, p. 9. 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/105 Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (12 January 2000) The Commission is fully aware of the difficulties experienced by Community industry in combating counterfeiting and piracy. It is not however possible for the Commission to give a precise response to the Honourable Memberís questions on the basis of the information she gives. The marketing of counterfeit and pirated goods, that is goods produced without the authorisation of the holder of the intellectual property rights covering the goods, damages law-abiding manufacturers and traders and misleads consumers. To prevent such goods from being placed on the Community market, the Community has developed a legal framework that ensures the effective protection of intellectual property rights within the Community. In particular, Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (1) aims to prevent the passage of counterfeit and pirated goods through the external borders of the Community. This Regulation allows the national customs authorities to suspend the release the right holder instigates infringement of goods suspected of being counterfeit or pirated whilst proceedings before the national authorities. The Commission has also, in October 1998, adopted a green paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in the single market (2). This is the starting point of a wide consultation process, involving all further strengthening the fight against counterfeiting and piracy in the interested parties, aimed at Commuinity. Furthermore, property right (TRIPs) agreement as of 1 January 2000. it should also be noted that Egypt has to apply the Trade-related aspect of intellectual Finally, in the framework of the negotiations between the Community and the Mediterranean countries, which includes Egypt, there are specific provisions intended to ensure the adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights in accordance with the prevailing international standards, including effective means of enforcing such rights. (1) OJ L 341, 30. 12. 1994 as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999, OJ L 27, 2. 2. 1999. (2) COM(98) 569 final. (2000/C 219 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2159/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Protecting high-quality traditional local products There have been an increasing number of complaints by trade and producersí associations against proposals that the Commission is allegedly putting forward with a view to prohibiting the production of traditional local products such as Italian mozzarella or other types of cheese which have been produced for centuries in clearly-defined agricultural areas. It would appear that the same applies to some parts of France, where the producers concerned are understandably up in arms. 1. Would the Commission say whether such proposals actually do exist? If they do, would it draw up a list of the types of cheese that would disappear, broken down by 2. Member State? 3. Is it aware of the economic and social damage that would be caused in the areas concerned by the removal of market niches which have formed part of the local culture of entire valleys and regions for many generations? 4. Does it realise that banning such products, on which in many cases the image of entire regions is built, would lead to the senseless destruction of small enterprises and that the only people to benefit from such a move would be industrial-scale producers and the retailing and distribution industry?