WRITTEN QUESTION P-2286/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Amendment to the EU chocolate directive.
24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/43 measures á shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital í. Moreover, judgements of the Court of justice (e. g. Case 17/92) indicate that economic grounds as such are not acceptable grounds for an exception. The mere fact that the opening of borders for capital movements puts an upward pressure on prices does not justify an exception from the freedom of such movements. However, if a large demand for secondary homes in a certain, but limited, area leads to undesirable social consequences such as that described by the Honourable Member, certain restrictions on the acquisition of second homes may be justified on grounds mentioned in the EC Treaty. Such restrictions could be accomplished by town and country planning guidelines, which may restrict the building of second homes and the use of existing buildings as second homes in certain limited areas, reserving those areas in a municipality or region to other land uses. The applicability of such measures was confirmed in a joint declaration on secondary residences (Declaration no. 5 in the Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden), which states that ánothing in the íacquis communautaireá prevents individual Member States from taking national, regional or local measures regarding secondary residences, provided that they are necessary for land-use planning and environmental protection and apply without direct or indirect discrimination between nationals of the Member States í. That declaration recalls that discrimination vis-à-vis non-residents, in particular Community nationals, must be avoided when applying such planning guidelines. The recent Court judgement mentioned by the Honourable Member (Konle vs. Austria of June 1999) provides further interpretation of this condition, as well as recalling the need to observe proportionality á to the extent that a Member State can justify its requirement of prior authorisation by relying on a town and country planning objective such as maintaining in the general interest, a permanent population and an economic activity independent of the tourist sector in certain regions, the restrictive measure inherent in such a requirement can be accepted only if it is not applied in a discriminatory manner and if the same result cannot be achieved by other less restrictive proceduresí (Case C-302/97). The Commissionís answer to the Honourable Memberís question is therefore that a Member State may apply town and country guidelines which include a restriction on the acquisition of second homes in certain limited areas, if there is a clear risk of social disruption. Such a restriction must be clearly non- discriminatory, that is, it must also apply to the residents or nationals of the Member State in question. The regime implementing the restriction shall not constitute a disguised (indirect) discrimination. Furthermore, the regime must be proportional to the aim of the restriction. Following the Court of justiceís judgement in Konle vs. Austria, a prior authorisation scheme should not be used, since there exist other, preferable, implementation schemes, such as, for instance a declaration procedure. Furthermore, a restriction may not be applied if there exist other, preferable, means to accomplish the purpose of safeguarding the residential needs of for instance, by subsidised rents or municipal housing projects. inhabitants of modest financial means, local (2000/C 303 E/039) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2286/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU Member States the term áchocolateí is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 % milk and no vegetable fat. This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa- producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries, including the fifteen Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa. C 303 E/44 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 1. Who (Commission, Member States, chocolate producers) took the first step towards a lowering of the cocoa standard? On the basis of what arguments and/or documents did the Commission approve a lowering of the 2. cocoa standard? 3. What EU Member States were advocates of a lowering of the cocoa standard? What arguments and/ or documents have these Member States used in support of their position? 4. Did the Commission carry out a study of the social and economic effects on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers before lowering the cocoa standard? If so, what were the results of the study? If not, why did the Commission neglect to carry out such a study, given the far-reaching social and economic impact on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers? 5. Can the amended chocolate directive with the lower cocoa standard be reconciled with the international cocoa agreement of 1995 which sought to encourage the consumption of cocoa? If so, what are the Commissionís arguments in support of this position? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (20 January 2000) On 28 October 1999 the Council adopted a common position on cocoa and chocolate products. The objective is to simplify and replace Council Directive 73/241/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the approximation the Member States relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human of the laws of consumption (1), in accordance with the conclusions of the 1992 Edinburgh European Council, which undertook to simplify legisation in the food sector. The common position was adopted by a qualified majority. Belgium and the Netherlands voted against and Luxembourg abstained. An important aim of the common position is to resolve the question of the use of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter in the manufacture of chocolate; at present the use of these fats is permitted in only seven Member States. The Council felt that complete harmonisation of these materials was the only way to ensure the free movement of all chocolate products and the establishment of the internal market in this sector. It therefore introduced a provision authorising the addition of these fats to chocolate products throughout the Community. At the same time, however, the common position severely restricts the use of these fats, defining them according to technical and scientific criteria and establishing a list of six specific fats, which are of tropical origin. With regard to labelling, the common position lays down very clear rules to ensure that consumers are correctly informed. It should be noted that, contrary to what the Honourable Member believes, the fats not derived from cocoa beans are added to chocolate as an optional ingredient, and do not replace the minimum quantities laid down by the Directive for cocoa or cocoa butter. Article 2(1) of the common position states that the addition of vegetable fats is authorised only under certain conditions and áwithout reducing the minimum content of cocoa butter or total dry cocoa matterí. Therefore, the addition of these fats, under certain conditions, does not make the manufactured product less like áchocolateí, provided of course that all the criteria for chocolate (including the content of substances derived from cocoa beans) are met. The proposal for a Directive (2) does not run counter to the international cocoa agreement. First, cocoa consumption is steadily rising in the Community. Second, the proposal lays down labelling rules to prevent the customer being misled. Moreover, seven Member States which signed the agreement and which authorise the use of vegetable fats did not believe that the use of these fats ran counter to these clauses. With regard to the Directiveís impact on the economies of the cocoa-producing countries, the Commission did a study which indicated that the chocolate market was flourishing and does not foresee any adverse affects on the economies of the developing countries. Nonetheless, it undertook to present a report four years after the Directive is adopted. 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/45 The Commission believes that the common position adopted by the Council safeguards all the interests at stake, including those of the developing countries. The substance of the common position corresponds to a large extent to the wishes expressed by Parliament at first reading. It has now been sent to Parliament for a second reading. (1) OJ L 228, 16. 8. 1973. (2) COM(95) 722 final. (2000/C 303 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2294/99 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council (13 December 1999) Subject: Amendment to the EU chocolate directive In late October the Council adopted an amendment to the EU chocolate directive which results in a lowering of the cocoa standard for chocolate. Once the amended directive enters into force, chocolate producers will be able to use cheaper raw materials which are cocoa substitutes. In eight of the fifteen EU Member States the term áchocolateí is currently limited to products with 25 % cocoa components, 14 % milk and no vegetable fat. This amendment to the cocoa directive will inflict serious social and economic damage on the cocoa- producing countries and the cocoa farmers. Moreover, the amended directive is clearly at variance with the international cocoa agreement of 1995 in which all cocoa-importing countries, including the fifteen Member States of the EU, undertook to encourage consumption of cocoa. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Who (Commission, Member States, chocolate producers) took the first step towards a lowering of the cocoa standard? 2. On the basis of what arguments and/or documents did the Council approve a lowering of the cocoa standard? 3. What EU Member States were advocates of a lowering of the cocoa standard? What arguments and/or documents have these Member States used in support of their position? 4. Did the Council carry out a study of the social and economic effects on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers before lowering the cocoa standard? If so, what were the results of the study? If not, why did the Council neglect to carry out such a study, given the far-reaching social and economic impact on the cocoa-producing countries and their farmers? 5. Can the amended chocolate directive with the lower cocoa standard be reconciled with the interna- tional cocoa agreement of 1995 which sought to encourage the consumption of cocoa? If so, what are the Councilís arguments in support of this position? Reply (10/11 April 2000) As a preliminary remark, the Council would draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the fact that the common position adopted by the Council with a view to the adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to cocoa and chocolate products maintains, for all the products in question, the minimum content of cocoa butter or total dry cocoa matter laid down by Directive 73/241/ EEC currently in force. It is therefore not a question of reducing the cocoa content, as the Honourable Member claims, but rather of permitting the addition of vegetable fats other than cocoa butter up to a maximum of 5 % of the finished product (cf. Article 2(1) of the common position), as some Member States already authorise the use of vegetable fat. The Council would point out that it decided to restrict these vegetable fats to six fats of tropical origin defined according to technical and scientific criteria as equivalents to cocoa butter, and