You are on page 1of 2

17.4.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92 E/227

The Commission has also launched in January 2002 a major initiative requesting the European-level social
partners to establish and develop a set of principles which should govern restructuring. The Commission
hopes that the social partners decide to take up that important issue.

(1) Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
collective redundancies. (This Directive consolidates Directives 75/129/EEC and 92/56/EEC), OJ L 225, 12.8.1998.
(2) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
undertakings or businesses, OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
(3) Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
informing and consulting employees, OJ L 254, 30.9.1994.
(4) Directive 2002/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 establishing a general
framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community, OJ L 80, 23.3.2002.

(2003/C 92 E/286) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3065/02


by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: National origin of food products

Recent cases, such as that of Genoese ‘pesto’, have once again highlighted the issue of accurate information
for consumers/purchasers about food products, especially in relation to their origin. In particular the habit
of using Italian names for products which have nothing to do with Italy has become widespread, as has the
practice of appropriating the names of traditional recipes, without respecting the content.

In the case of products which are not protected by a European quality mark (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/
92 (1)), the safeguarding of accurate consumer information as regards the origin and identity of a product
referred to by a traditional name is ensured by the Directive on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, No 2000/13/EC (2).

Can the Commission say:

 which Member States have transposed Directive 2000/13/EC in its entirety;

 what its general view is of the actual impact of Directive 2000/13/EC, and more particularly the
measures to be adopted in the event of behaviour infringing its provisions and misleading the
consumer;

 whether information measures for the promotion of agricultural products in the internal market
carried out pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 (3) may also be directed towards familiarising
European consumers with the quality of the traditional products of the individual Member States?

(1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.


(2) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.
(3) OJ L 328, 23.12.2000, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2002)

Directive 2000/13/EC (1) is the consolidated version of Directive 79/112/EEC on the labelling of
foodstuffs (2) and its subsequent amendments.

Directive 2000/13/EC does not therefore require any national measures to transpose it, as all of its
provisions were transposed following adoption of the original texts.
C 92 E/228 Official Journal of the European Union EN 17.4.2003

Article 2 of the above Directive establishes the principle that labelling must not be such as could mislead
the consumer as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in particular, as to its nature, identity,
properties, composition, quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufacture or production.

The national authorities continue to be responsible for monitoring compliance with these provisions and
for taking action if they ascertain any infringements.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that Regulation (EC) No 2026/2000 (3)
provides in particular for support for information programmes on the Community systems of protected
designations of origin (PDOs), protected geographical indications (PGIs) and traditional specialities
guaranteed (TSGs).

Programmes such as these may be proposed by trade associations or inter-branch organisations or, in the
absence of a private initiative, by the Member States concerned.

(1) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109,
6.5.2000.
(2) OJ L 33, 8.2.1979.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2826/2000 of 19 September 2000 on information and promotion actions for
agricultural products on the internal market, OJ L 328, 23.12.2000.

(2003/C 92 E/287) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3089/02


by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: Safe Driving Centre in Luxembourg

In my written question E-0690/00 (1) on the rules applied in Luxembourg to the setting up of safe driving
centres in that country, I pointed out that the provisions in question clearly placed the Colmar Berg
Advanced Training Centre in a privileged position as a result of the application of rules specifically tailored
to that establishment.

The Commission looked into the matter, and decided to open infringement proceedings (No 1999/4982)
against Luxembourg on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty. A letter of notification was sent to the
Luxembourg government on 12 September 2000, to which the government failed to provide a satisfactory
reply. A second letter was sent on 20 December 2001, to which the Luxembourg authorities have not yet
replied.

Effective discrimination continues to apply, therefore, since the monopoly position enjoyed by the centre,
which turns out to be a subsidiary of a holding company headed by the Austrian company ‘Test and
Training’, arises from national rules drawn up on the basis of the technical characteristics of the Colmar
Berg facility and geared solely to the services it offers. The rules in question discriminate against other
operators, as in order to be able to open a centre in Luxembourg they would be obliged to construct 
needlessly, without any justification and at very great cost  identical structures to those in Colmar Berg,
even though, as the Commission has pointed out, the characteristic features of that centre are not essential
to the safety of users.

Moreover, as it is obligatory to pass a safe driving course in order to obtain a driving licence in
Luxembourg, potential customers are in effect deprived of freedom of choice, as the Colmar Berg centre is
the only one there is.

Does the Commission intend to remedy this situation, which undermines the Community principles of
freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services and simultaneously creates a monopoly
position, in defiance of the rules of free competition? If so, when does it intend to send the Luxembourg
government a reasoned opinion, which is indispensable if the infringement procedure opened earlier is to
be pursued?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 135.