Summary of meeting of the Committee on the internal market and consumer protection (IMCO), Brussels, 21st – 24th November 2005

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

Mr. Phillip WHITEHEAD (PSE, UK) chaired the meeting of the Committee.

I. Chairperson's announcements

The vote on the ORTEGA report, 2004/0203(COD) - doc. 12555/04 - COM (2004)0582,

th

would be postponed until 12 December 2005. On the same date, there would be an extraordinary report by Ms. McCARTHY.

Commissioner KOVACS would address the Committee in January.

II. Examination of reports as committee responsible

  • a) 
    Retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communication services

COM(2005)0438 - doc. 12671/05 - 2005/0182(COD)

Rapporteur: Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD (EPP-ED, SE)

  • - 
    Consideration of a draft opinion

The draft opinion would address the topic from three standpoints: (i) the balance between law,

privacy and security (ii) the balance between democracy and policy making (iii) the tension

between industry, commerce and the consumer. The report would focus on streamlining the

internal market dimension of data retention, pursuing multiple goals of reducing terrorism,

organised crime and piracy. The proposal would benefit from an impact assessment although

this would be submitted to a split vote. Compromise would be necessary on several elements,

rd

notably: cost, comitology, the retention of information by 3 party countries. Ms. CEDERSCHIÖLD proposed that in order to avoid all market distortion, the article 15 data

protection directive would be rewritten in order to reduce data protection. It was likely that

the CEJ would reject the proposals submitted by the Council and the Commission.

The floor was offered to the members of the Committee. Ms. HEDH (PSE, SE) said that

inquests following terrorist attacks showed the need for reform in the area of data retention.

Mr. NEWTON-DUNN (ALDE, UK) related the chagrin of the UK Presidency of the Council

upon learning that the proposal would follow the co-decision process and not progress under

rd

the 3 pillar. The co-decision method was entirely suited to an issue which affected civil liberties. The Council of Ministers should not put the burden of storage of information on

industry. The length of the data retention period remained a thorny issue, for instance the

entertainment industry would need longer since its piracy investigations were self funded.

Ms. RÜHLE (Verts/ALE, DE) emphasised the need to convince citizens that data retention

proposals were in their interest, something that was not helped by the speed of

implementation of reforms. Ms. ROITHOVA (PPE-DE, CZ) said that twelve months was too

long a retention period to be decided upon so quickly. Furthermore, international

harmonisation was imperative to assure applicability of the measures in Asia. Ms.

McCARTHY (PSE, UK) supported her colleagues' concerns about time and warned that it

was not the competence of IMCO to deal with questions of civil liberties. The report must

propose measures that will not distort the internal market but will succeed in restoring

investor confidence in the internal market. The latter would invariably be achieved by

increased security. Drawing on examples from the Irish market, Ms. McCARTHY contested

Mr. NEWTON DUNN's assertion that member states would not reimburse industry, adding

that industry must properly justify its costs. Finally, data should be retained for at least one

year, certain member states retaining information for several years. Ms. SVENSSON

(GUE/NGL, SE) said the timeframe for submission of the report should allow for an impact

assessment to be carried out before the legislation was passed.

The representative of the Commission, Mr. Luigi SORECA (CE), claimed the Commission

had already conducted an appropriate impact assessment study according to the Better

Regulation guidelines. The article 85 base for the proposals sought a minimum harmonisation

on the issue of data retention. The retention period would undoubtedly be the result of a

compromise, the current base being six months for the internet, and 12 months for the

telephone. The article 95(4) mechanism existed to preserve currently existing national

legislation that exceeded these guarantees.

Mr. HARBOUR (PPE-DE, UK) approved the internal market focus of the report on what had

to date been treated as a security question. Mr. HARBOUR questioned whether the law

enforcement agencies actually had the capability to store the data concerned. Mr. TOUBON

(PPE-DE, FR) reminded the Committee of the origin of the proposals, namely the spate of

terrorist attacks in recent years which evidence suggested could have been avoided had there

existed better surveillance of telephone networks. Mr. TOUBON suggested the need for

reform was urgent and thus an impact assessment would be misplaced. Mr. JONCKHEER

(Verts/ALE, BE) suggested that competition between national telephone networks would

make it difficult to harmonise legislation. In response to Committee inquiries about the

obligations of third party states, Ms. CEDERSCHIOLD confirmed that the wording had been

carefully chosen by the legal service in order to avoid the theft of information by third parties

or by Member states in order to pass onto third parties.

  • b) 
    The effect of globalisation on the internal market 2004/2225(INI)

Rapporteur: Edit HERCZOG (PSE, HU)

  • - 
    Exchange of views

Ms HERCZOG stated there was a need for Parliament to intensify trans Atlantic relations,

create appropriate conditions for SME and larger companies and foster conditions that would

encourage major market players to invest in the EU. Ms ROITHOVA (PPE-DE, CZ)

proposed the use of a general clause concerning the potential impact on global markets in

rd

every future report published by the Committee. She expressed her concern that 3 party countries were abusing the competitive disadvantage at which Europe found itself and that

industry trade strategy was ill placed to compete with competitors in China and India. Ms.

ROTHOVA disagreed that a Commission Globalisation Fund was necessary, suggesting the

EU could make do with one off support donations. Further interventions were made by Mr.

NEWTON-DUNN (Verts/ALE, UK) and Mr HARBOUR.

The latter cited the CAR-21 project as evidence that technical experts can sometimes be slow

in implementing projects, getting bogged down in minutiae, and that a consistent political

impetus was needed to keep things moving. As regards the competitive advantage in relation

to global competitors, the EU should do more to publicise its successful initiatives such as the

Programme for Competitiveness and Innovation. Finally, the EU should correct some of the

misconceptions as regards this subject ­ competitiveness in the European market is only

possible because of, not in spite of, globalisation.

Mr Jeroen HOOIJER (CE) of DG Internal Markets, welcomed the approach of the

Draftsperson in recalling the protection of IPR & impact assessments. A concrete strategy

should be developed by the Commission by early 2006.

nd

The deadline for amendments to the report was set as 2 December 2005, with a final decision on its adoption taken after the final opinion from INTA on the same subject, at the

end of January 2006.

Rapporteur: Bill NEWTON DUNN (ALDE, UK)

  • - 
    Exchange of views

Mr. NEWTON DUNN introduced the discussion by outlining three possible directions the

current Trans-Atlantic relationship could take: (i) the EU could do nothing and ignore current

problems; (ii) both parties could push for a trans-Atlantic free market with the same

legislation and a trans-Atlantic assembly; (iii) a middle way, whereby the two sides attempted

to resolve their current differences, such as a those regarding hormones in beef or climate

change.

Ms. HERCZOG, as shadow draftsperson for the same issue with the INTA committee

reiterated the importance of close ties with the US & Canada. Mr. HARBOUR regretted that

technical decisions were being taken in the trans-Atlantic area without due consideration of

their effects. The US could benefit from a lot of European internal market technology, and

Europe would benefit from a reduction in EU protectionism.

The report was scheduled to be finished by February, by which time the INTA report on the

same issue would also have been prepared.

Draftsperson: Andreas SCHWAB (PPE-DE, DE)

Mr. SCHWAB (PPE-DE, DE) spoke of the need to give SMEs market access without excluding

consumer protection. The existence of over 25 tractors Directives meant that tractors should be

dealt with under a separate piece of legislation, not the machinery Directive. Between now and

2009tractors would be subject to a dual Directive protection, a protection which would drop

away after the expiration of this period. On the subject of scrapping, Mr. SCHWAB proposed

that the manufacturer be responsible for safeguarding the scrapping process against all

accidents, and that it was necessary for the manufacturer to know how the machine would be

scrapped at the moment of its conception.

The Commission said that machinery legislation reform was foreseen in the work programme

for 2006. Before then, the legislation should be left as it is, it being necessary to investigate

thoroughly how safety risks covered by the old tractors directive would be dealt with under the

new machinery directive. The difficult question of the interim period before introduction of the

new tractors Directive remained unresolved. As regards scrapping, the Commission had never

said it was the responsibility of the manufacturer to check the scrapping process would be safe,

only that it wished the manufacturer to take into account the life cycle of his product, and to

recognise that scrapping constituted a part of that life cycle.

The Council expressed certain concerns as regards the EC marking, being concerned that there

was a potential for misleading third parties and that it would therefore prefer to establish a

common position in this area. However, the Council shared Mr. SCHWAB's aim to introduce a

revised tractors Directive. Concerning the boundary between harmless and non hazardous

machines, the Council was concerned that any confusion in this area would enable dangerous

machines to sneak into the "safe" category.

There then followed numerous interventions by the Parliamentarians. Ms. De VITS (PSE, BE):

also felt the text was misleading on the markings of the EC form, and would give rise to

contradictory interpretations at member state level.; Ms. FOURTOU (ALDE, FR) and Ms

RUHLE supported the work of the draftsperson, although the latter disagreed with Mr.

SCHWAB that the an extra burden was being placed on the manufacturer as regards scrapping.

It was entirely appropriate that the manufacturer adjust his design to avoid safety risks that

occur during scrapping. Ms. GEBHARDT and Mr. HARBOUR wished to see a speedy

resolution of the outstanding questions, with 2008 the very latest it would be acceptable to

publish a new Directive.

Draftsperson: Ms. Diana Wallis (ALDE)

Ms. WALLIS (ALDE, UK) explained the two parts of her report, the first going through

previous EC acquis to check its construction and the second to create the common frame of

reference for contract law. Certain member states wished to avoid creating a European Civil

Code. It was anticipated that there would be a written report at the end of this Parliamentary

mandate, which would be made into some binding instrument but for the moment it represented

only an item of soft law, i.e. for consultation purposes. Ms. WALLIS proposed establishing a

temporary committee to avoid too many political or policy decisions being made by those

discussing the issue, or alternatively a working group jointly formulated from both the JURI and

IMCO committees.

Mr. HARBOUR objected to the lack of a clearly defined objective for introduction of the new

instrument, necessary for making better law. The Parliament could expect reluctance from the

member states to incorporate EU contract law in their internal systems, thus a modular fashion

might be more desirable, dividing the reforms into sections that each country could opt in or out

of. Ms RÜHLE agreed with Mr. HARBOUR - there was a need to constantly consider how the

member states could be tied in, particularly in light of the failure of the constitution for Europe.

Ms. HERCZOG followed Mr. HARBOUR's lead in hoping to see a more precisely defined

"added value" that Europe stood to gain from the proposal .

The Commission reminded the Committee that certain aims were fixed in 2003 and the

Commission guidelines of 2004, as well as the Commission communication of July 2001.

Parliament and certain stakeholders had told the Commission that the key issues when

presenting a report on this subject would be the improvement of the internal market and the

coherence of existing and future EC contract law. From the outset, member states had been tied

into the process by each consultative document: the Council Resolutions on the subject in 2001

and 2003, a major conference in 2004, with a Commission communication in the same year. On

th

the 29 November 2005, the Council would adopt a further statement on the issue. The Common Frame of Reference is intended to be a "tool kit" from which the European

Community can pull out common principles, not a replacement or parallel instrument to

member state domestic law. Whilst classifying the compendium of European Contract Law as

an "optional instrument" had not been ruled out, a common frame of reference was the current

priority. Mr. LIDDLE, speaking on behalf of the UK Presidency of the Council, shared the

concerns of the gathered Parliamentarians.

Ms. WALLIS denied that the project represented a solution seeking a problem. Citing

independent surveys issued by private law firms such as the London based Clifford Chance, the

draftsperson pointed to a large body of lawyers and practitioners eager to see the development

of such an instrument. Mr. WHITEHEAD concluded the debate by establishing the timetable

nd

for the report: amendments should be submitted by 2 December 2005, with a vote on the report coming during the last two weeks of January 2006.

Draftsperson: Manuel MEDINA ORTEGA (PSE, ES)

Following a presentation by Mr. MEDINA ORTEGA and interventions by Mr. HARBOUR, the

Commission, Ms. GEBHARDT, Ms. RUHLE and Ms. ROITHOVA (PPE-DE, CZ), it was

th

agreed that the report would be submitted to a Committee vote on the 12 December 2005. Mr. MEDINA ORTEGA concluded by warning against downplaying the issue of industrial

protection and intellectual property, areas that the proposal would inevitably cover.

Draftsperson: Mr. Jacques TOUBON (EPP-ED, FR)

Mr. TOUBON (EPP-ED, FR) gave notice that the Council wishes to reach a conclusion on the

subject before the end of the year. There would be a meeting to review an impact assessment in

th

the last week of November 2005, with an IMCO vote on the 12 December 2005 and an th

examination at the plenary session on the 15 December 2005. A full liberalisation was proposed with limited exceptions providing for a normal packaging in respect of certain

specific products. Studies showed that vulnerable people were very attentive to easily

recognisable packaging and that new packaging rules would not place a great cost burden on

the producers. The liberalisation of formats must be accompanied with an awareness campaign

targeted at the consumers so that they understand what has been offered to them. To this end,

certain amendments would be proposed for milk, butter, pasta, coffee and sugar, as well as for

duty free products. The dispositions would be valid for 8 years with a review after this period.

Ms. GEBHARDT (PSE, DE) and Mr. HEATON HARRIS (PPE-DE, UK) praised the

willingness of Mr. THOUBON to discuss further amendments with them in private next week.

Mr. HEATON HARRIS introduced amendments relating to the metric system, absent in the

UK market particularly for milk products, and also relating to bread, the majority of which in

the UK is sold pre-packaged and sliced.

Mr. LIDDLE then spoke on behalf of the UK Presidency of the Council. The issue would be

rd

discussed in COREPER on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 November 2005. The Council expressed its general satisfaction with the technical aspects of the proposals but cautioned that

the Council working groups wished to see as few additions as possible to the basic text. He

added that the UK was not alone in its anomalous implementations of the original 1975

Directive.

Mr. LEBRUN (CE) praised the balance of the proposals, saying however that the position of

the consumer was slightly weak and that the analysis of the different sectors was perhaps not as

rigorous as might be wished. The accompanying measures wished by the draftsperson

regarding additional information detailing both the price and content of the product, would be

necessary.

Mr. THOUBON concluded the exchange of views by saying it would be up to the individual

Parliamentarians to draw attention to the various anomalies in Member State packaging, as Mr.

HEATON HARRIS had done with Amendement 21on bread and milk in the UK.

Draftsperson: Marianne THYSSEN (PPE-DE, BE)

Ms. THYSSEN introduced the reforms considered by her report, including the creation of an

agency to deal with the subject. There would be specific measures for each sector. Ms

THYSSEN discussed the pros and cons of an integrated programme. Whilst there could be

administrative advantages to an integrated programme, there were two different legal bases for

the reforms, arts. 153 and 252, which necessitated different competences. There were two

different branches to the proposal - consumer protection and public health, and the Parliament

must be careful not to interfere with national legislation on the latter. NGOs rarely dealt with

both public health and consumer protection therefore from this point of view there was little

interest to use an integrated programme. Consequently, it would be better to have separate

budgets for the two branches of the report. The Commission needed to take note of the greater

precision required when drawing up laws in comparison to action plans.

Ms. FOURTOU stressed the impossibility of assimilating users of public health services and

everyday consumers; different needs were at the origin of their use of the services.

Parliamentarians were unanimous in their support for the report. Mr. WHITEHEAD, however,

doubted that the creation of an agency was the right approach to take, drawing on his recent trip

to the European Food Agency in Parma. Mr. HARBOUR agreed with the draftsperson that the

Commission had not made the case for an integrated programme. He bemoaned the absence in

the Commission of a specific champion for the rights of small and medium sized businesses.

Further interventions in support of the report were made by Ms. SVENSSON, Mr.

KRISTENSEN, and Ms. PLESTINSKA.

The Commission defended the integrated programme on the basis of the potential economies of

scale made by such an approach. It would also give a greater momentum to the initiatives

because the budget for the programme would be commensurately larger for the joint initiative.

The goal was not to create a new agency but to expand the existing health agency to deal with

its new mission. Transparency and visibility of the rules would be aided by greater

harmonisation.

The representative of the Council, Mr. LIDDLE, said that a resolution of the financial

perspectives and the adoption of a first opinion by the Parliament on these issues would be

necessary before the Council took a firm position. Ms. THYSSEN reminded the Committee

th

that the 8 December 2005 was the deadline for Amendments and that the Committee would look to adopt the report at a meeting in January 2006.

Draftsperson: Ms. Zita PLESTINSKÁ (PPE-DE, SL)

Ms. PLESTINSKA criticised the vague naming of financing methods. Article 5 European

Community financing can be made available by two methods: (i) grounds without cause for

proposals (for European standards organisations) (ii) grounds with cause for proposals or public

procurement (for other agencies). However, confusion was caused by allowing agencies not

involved with European standards to benefit from the less rigorous first method. The

Commission should be obliged to carry out control of financing and to report this to the

Council and the Parliament. National standards agencies wished to criticise the lengthy

translations process and the inadequate 50% subsidy of translation exercises, the resultant cost

placing a heavy burden on small and medium sized businesses.

Ms. HERCZOG spoke in favour of the draftsperson's document, the Commission proposals

and the European standardisation process. Mr HARBOUR said a linkage of funding to

performance would be appropriate to push along the work of European standards bodies.

III: Exchange of views with Alan Johnson MP, UK President in Office, on the Services

Directive

Mr. JOHNSON gave the standpoint of the Council on the Services Directive under the UK

Presidency. He believed the Council would call for greater work in the services market, to

match the development of the free movement of goods area. Any agreements on the Directive

must address three concerns. Firstly, scope - only economic services should fall within the

remit of the Directive, i.e., primary and secondary education would be excluded, as would the

financing of public services ("service of general economic interest"). A large majority of the

member states also wished to exclude gambling. Secondly, substance - member states wished

to retain power to pursue legitimate policy objectives, and it was thus proposed that the country

of origin principle would not cover sensitive areas such as health, social services, the protection

of animals, employment matters (already dealt with under the Rome Convention) and criminal

law.

The Committee submitted questions to Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. HARBOUR (PPE-DE, UK) feared

the Austrian presidency would show itself apathetic about the fate of the Directive, although

Mr. JOHNSON stressed he had met Mr. BARTENSTEIN of the Austrian Ministry for

Economic Affairs and Labour, to ensure momentum would not be lost. Mr HARBOUR and

Ms. GEBHARDT both felt the posting of workers' Directive should not be amended by way of

the Services Directive, the former being a question of freedom of movement following

enlargement rather than a freedom of services issue. For Mr. HARBOUR, the growth of online

and current EU jurisprudence showed there needs to be some regulation across the internal

market. However, Ms. GEBHARDT cited statistics taken from Nordic states (where up to 80%

of gambling receipts to social services) that contrasted starkly with those from other member

states, in order to show how difficult harmonisation would be. Ms. GEBHARDT, Ms. RUHLE

and Ms. CEDERSCHIOLD agreed that gambling was an inappropriate subject for a horizontal

directive, although Mr. NEWTON DUNN took a different view, arguing member states that

oppose inclusion of gambling were ignoring the truth that they cannot protect national

monopolies, since cross border gambling already exists.

Ms. McCARTHY criticised the proposed Directive for not going far enough in its regulation of

the black economy, and warned of the risk of importing a flood of illegal workers who would

not be protected by the Directive's provisions. She also expressed concern at the absence of an

agreed definition of "services of general interest", which represented therefore a backdoor

mechanism for MS protectionism. Mr. TOUBON (PPE-DE, FR) did not approve of the failure

of the Directive to tackle the issue of health. His concerns regarding culture and in particular

the film industry, were allayed by Mr. JOHNSON, who assured the Mr. THOUBON that

cultural subsidies for cinema will not be affected by the Services Directive.

III. Vote on reports as committee responsible

  • a. 
    The promotion and protection of consumers' interest in the new MS IMCO/6/23426 - 2004/2157 (INI)

Draftsperson: Henrik Dam KRISTENSEN (PSE, DA)

The report has been adopted with adoption of the following written amendments: 1; 2; 3; 4; 6;

7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 15; 18; 20; 21; 23; 26; 27; 29; 31; 32; 33; 34; 36; 37; 38; 39; 40; 41

The following oral amendments were also adopted: 2; 3; 4; 5

  • b. 
    Retention of data processed in connection with the provision of public electronic communications services

COM(2005)0438 - doc. 12671/05 - 2005/0182(COD)

Draftsperson: Charlotte CEDERSCHIÖLD (EPP-ED, SE,)

The report has been adopted with the following written amendments: 1 (parts 1 & 2); 8; 9; 10;

24; Part II (McC); 23; 5; 6; 7; 21

Draftsperson: Evelyne GEBHARDT (PSE, DE)

The report was adopted with a number of amendments.

2001/0004(COD) - doc. 10855/05

Draftsperson: Andreas SCHWAB (PPE-DE, DE)

The text was adopted with the following written Amendments passed; 10; 11; 13; 15; 16; 17;

18; 19; 20; 21; 23; 24, 25; 27a; 31; 33; 34; 35; 36; Compromise 1; Compromise 3 (to Annex

10).

The report will now go forward to a second reading (co-decision procedure).

IV: Joint meeting of IMCO and the Mixed Parliamentary Commission for the European Economic Area (EEA)

Mr. Svein Roald HANSEN, Member of the Norwegian Parliament and co-chair of the Joint

Parliamentary Commission, explained briefly the history of EFTA (European Free Trade

Association), which today boasts four members: Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and

Switzerland. The Services Directive was as important for EFTA as for the EEA ­ services had

been lagging behind other elements of the internal market. The reverse side of this was the need

to protect the social rights of workers, and the EFTA states were sensitive as to how the

Directive could affect the social model. EFTA states have a great interest in the Better

Regulation process. Mr. MEDINA ORTEGA (PSE, ES) later took up the issue of Better

Regulation. He argued that the reforms threatened the initiative power of the EC, even if the

Parliament needed an equal footing in law making.

Ms. WALLIS, Vice-President of the JPC and Mr. HARBOUR celebrated the historical

significance of today's meeting. Ironically, EFTA Parliamentarians, excluded from the EU

decision making process, were often better at the implementation of EU regulations often. Ms.

GEBHARDT, although not wishing to reopen the debate on the Services Directive, drew

attention to the fact that the Committee had defined services of "general interest" but not those

of "general economic interest". This meant that while audiovisual and gambling services had

ben excluded, the fate of those covered by other sectoral directives including a number of

financial services (such as pension funds) had not yet been discussed. Articles 14 and 15 of the

Directive had permitted certain obstacles to the free movement of services, which would affect

local authorities' powers. One exception in particular limited the focus to cross border services,

but there was confusion as to how the right of establishment could be linked to cross border

services. The net result of these multiple concerns was the risk that there would be a patchwork

effect in the implementation of the Services Directive.

Ms. Ewa HEDKVIST PETERSEN (PSE, SE), joint Draftsperson for the resolution of the EEA

JPC 2000-2005, brought up the issue of consumer rights within the new free market of services.

The consumers must have the right to file a complaint and know who to apply to should they be

disaffected with the service being provided to them. Mr Matthias BRINKMAN (CE)

underscored the role of EFTA in expanding the reach of the internal market and providing

stimulus for growth. He drew attention to the points raised by Commissioner McCreevy that

European GDP would be 800 billion euros lower each year without the internal market but that

in spite of this contribution growth and employment rates were unsatisfactorily low.

Frequently, the negative side of globalisation was emphasised but it had opened up a huge

economic potential for the internal market, for instance the Chinese economy. Mr.

BRINKMAN concluded by expressing his hope that the Social Market economy model would

not be compromised by the Services Directive or the Better Regulations work of the

Committee.

Ms RÜHLE (Verts/ALE, DE) asked how the EEA's discussions on the services directive were

progressing. She reiterated that the Committee was unanimous in wanting a Services Directive

that was not too bureaucratic but that also did not skimp on standards, notably those relating to

safety and to the environment, which would have the greatest effect on the SMEs. Ms.

PLESTINSKA (PPE-DE, SK) informed the JPC that the Directive's passage through IMCO

had been received favourably in Slovakia. Mr. JANOWSKI (UEN, PL) drew attention to those

services excluded from the Directive, notably the water utilities. He suggested the timetabling

of a Parliamentary review two years after the implementation of the Directive. Mr. HAMON

(PSE, FR) drew attention to the recent rise in interest rates sanctioned by the European Central

Bank. Without a strengthening of global demand, there would be no growth in the European

market. He warned that the exceptions made for public services endangered the return of

economic growth. Ms RUDI UBEDA (PPE-DE, ES) agreed that Europe had entered a period of

relative economic stagnation but suggested that the Services Directive reforms could represent

a useful step forward for liberalisation and consequent growth. However, she reminded the JPC

that liberalisation need not run counter to the protection of social rights.

Mr. HANSEN wrapped up the JPC's discussions by giving a resume of Norway's integration

into the internal market. The Norwegian services market was already quite open and the

proposed Services Directive would only have a positive effect on this, provided that social

dumping was avoided. The exclusion of the health services and those of public interest was, in

his opinion, generally a good thing.

V. Petitions concerning the banning of the import and sale of act and dog fur and on compulsory labelling of origin for fur and fur products

The petitions were lodged by Mr Gerd STRAETEN and Mr. Karim MALGAIVE.

Mr. Andrea GAVINELLI (CE, DG SANCO), spoke about the compromise offered by the

Commission, as well as the unilateral bans imposed by France, Belgium, Greece, Italy,

Germany, Australia and Switzerland. The petition referred specifically to triangular trade

passing through Belgium which has increased due to a ban in the USA. The area discussed was

at the very edge of Commission competence. The SANCO Commission proposal was based on

art.95 of the Treaty which deals with banning the sale of cat and dog furs. However the article

is awkward as a legal basis, making the legal competence of the Commission on this matter

appear unsound. There was also a lack of data on this specific trade. Articles 155 or 133,

providing for an import ban, could be a more fruitful legal source. There was also the

possibility of labelling, but the Commission Legal Service felt this would be difficult for only

two kinds of animal and not others. Furthermore, it was not yet clear that the member states

wished Brussels to intervene in this area.

Interventions were made by Mr. HARBOUR, who suggested that there could be a generic label

for all animal pelt products aided by DNA technology. Mr. STEVENSON (PPE-DE, UK) cited

the considerable public support for an EU wide ban on animal furs. Labelling would be of little

use since the deterrent was so great that such restrictions would simply push the trade further

underground, with particularly Chinese producers of animal pelts using all means possible to

disguise the origin of their products.

IV. Time and place of the next meeting

th

Monday, 12 December 2005, Brussels.

_________________________

For further information, please contact: Mr. David LITTLE (tel. 5744)

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie