Series Title | European Voice |
---|---|
Series Details | 16/05/96, Volume 2, Number 20 |
Publication Date | 16/05/1996 |
Content Type | News |
Date: 16/05/1996 By IN a major volte-face, the European Commission was today expected to allow the Spanish authorities to force wine producers to bottle quality Rioja before exporting it to other member states. Delhaize, the Belgian supermarket chain, has been fighting since 1990 to overturn a decree from the Rioja regional government banning it from importing quality-certificated wine from the area in tanker lorries for bottling in Belgium. First the Commission, then the European Court of Justice, found that Spain had contravened Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome which bans quotas between member states and “any measures having equivalent effect”. Still the Spanish failed to comply, prompting the Belgian government to file a complaint against Madrid with the Court in December last year under Article 170, claiming Spain had failed to fulfil its treaty obligations. The Commission was due to file a 'reasoned opinion' in favour of one of the parties by today (15 May) and, reversing their four-year-old opinion, Commissioners were last night lining up 17 to three in favour of allowing compulsory local bottling. Making the proposal, Farm Commissioner Franz Fischler said times had changed since the original court ruling in June 1992. “Since the complaint was first made, several things have changed,” said a Commission official. “The existing system of quality control has been found to be wanting, there is increasing consumer awareness that good wine bottled in the region can be of a superior quality and there is the 'free rider' problem.” Supporters of local bottling argue that if a voluntary system of choosing to bottle locally or export in bulk were permitted, this would present unfair opportunities to bulk exporters. They maintain that if a group of producers chose to develop a new wine bottled in the region with a quality certificate, another producer could export in bulk with the same name and have a 'free ride' on the marketing efforts of the others. Opponents of the proposed about-turn - Commissioners Karel Van Miert, Hans van den Broek and Anita Gradin - argue that the enforced local bottling is a transgression of the treaty and cannot be justified on grounds of quality control. “Producers suffer because they are obliged to bottle all quality wines, while consumer interest is also harmed since imports in bottles will be more expensive,” said one Commission official opposed to the move. “There is nothing in EU legislation to allow compulsory bottling, but there is something to ensure quality control.” Critics of the volte-face argue that the Commission should instead continue its efforts to persuade member states to agree on stricter quality control standards. A Commission proposal to insist on inspections of wine tanker shipments, with samples of products taken at departure and at bottling factories in northern Europe, has been blocked for years by member states concerned about the costs. “We asked the Council to accept improved verification procedures, including a physical examination of the wine,” said an official. “This happens with sherry, involving people from the region riding with the tankers to verify the quality at the time of bottling.” All wine-producing member states enforce local bottling for certain products - including in Alsace, the special Luxembourg 'appelation', the marque nationale, the vin de qualité produit dans un région déterminé mark, Champagne and Chianti. The difference in this case is simply that one member state has brought an infringement suit against another. This is no consolation to the opponents of compulsory bottling. “It is a dangerous precedent for other products such as oils,” said one. A Belgian foreign ministry official said: “When choosing wine, one considers the region from which it comes, but also the merchant who ships and bottles it. I am afraid I do not buy the Spanish quality argument. This is a question of the Rioja region deciding to make more money by forbidding the sale of its wine in bulk. It is inexcusable.” |
|
Subject Categories | Business and Industry |