BETA


1994/0107(CNS) Market in wine: reform of the common organisation of the market COM

Progress: Procedure lapsed or withdrawn

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AGRI FANTUZZI Giulio (icon: PES PES)
Committee Opinion BUDG DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio (icon: FE FE)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
EC before Amsterdam E 042, EC before Amsterdam E 043

Events

1998/12/17
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
1998/12/17
   all - Additional information
1996/06/27
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
1996/06/27
   CSL - Council Meeting
1996/01/22
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The President declared that he intended re-opening the debate on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, as proposed by the Commission in 1994 and already discussed on several occasions by the ministers. According to the President, the market situation had completely changed in the last few years, moving from a situation of significant surpluses to a state of relative balance, which had to be stabilised. There was also good reason to take account of the new situation following the conclusion of the GATT and to take steps to prevent the Community wine-producing sector from suffering unfair competition. Commissioner Fischler pointed out that the Commission was prepared to discuss possible amendments to its proposal in view of the new factual data and in consideration of the opinion expressed by Parliament. The Council entrusted the Special Committee on Agriculture with the task of analysing the market situation and examining the proposal in the light of this initiative from the Commission.

Documents
1996/01/22
   CSL - Council Meeting
1995/06/19
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
1995/06/19
   CSL - Council Meeting
1995/05/29
   CSL - Debate in Council
Details

The Presidency announced that it would submit an advisory note at the next meeting with a view to the Council reaching an agreement on the reform of the wine sector.

Documents
1995/05/29
   CSL - Council Meeting
1995/04/06
   EP - Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
1995/04/06
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Documents
1995/04/05
   EP - Debate in Parliament
Details

The rapporteur recalled the many differences among the Member States and among the regions within a country. That was why his report was so important for the regions and why the vote in plenary had to enhance the spirit of the compromise sought by the Committee on Agriculture. Commissioner FISCHLER agreed that they should refrain from adopting overly rigid mechanisms for quotas and should take account of all of the criteria that influenced production. As regards the regional programmes, he could not take over the amendments (such as Amendments Nos 24 and 35) that relaxed the requirement on the Member States to reduce production. Other amendments (Amendments Nos 25 to 29, 31, 143 to 145 and 160) could not be implemented within the framework of the restrictive budget line. As regards enrichment with sugar, the Commissioner could not take over certain amendments, such as the first part of Amendment No 42, which limited this practice to the regions in which it was currently authorised. The same applied for Amendments Nos 40 to 51, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122, 148, 167 and 171. Amendment No 48 contradicted the GATT rules. The Commissioner also had to reject Amendments Nos 38 (Spain’s gradual adaptation to Community legislation) and 39 (separate rules for Portugal). Finally, he urged that structural measures be implemented to resolve the problem of overproduction. The rapporteur thus called on the Commissioner to submit to Parliament the summary of its opinion on the amendments to be taken over; this was attached as an annex to COM(94)117 final.

1995/03/21
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
1995/03/21
   EP - Vote in committee
1995/03/20
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
1995/02/22
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
Details

While welcoming the Commission’s presentation of a proposal for a regulation on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, the ESC regretted that the Commission had not taken account of the ESC’s vital suggestions nor the trade associations’ strong objections to the Council’s communication of 22 July 1993. It called on the new European Commission to amend radically its proposal for a regulation. According to the ESC, the market guidance had to be made a central plank of the reform process. This meant turning away from a centrally-run market. Instead, the European wine industry should be encouraged to become more competitive with other drinks. Moreover, trade barriers such as discriminatory excise duties between drinks in some Member States should be avoided and better sales conditions created for producers and traders. The reform should give the EU’s regions more responsibility for quality and market policy, in accordance with subsidiarity. This would mean, at the same time, deregulation and cutting red tape to encourage economic self-reliance and initiative. This re-directing of European wine policy should, in the ESC’s view, be started at once and completed over a 10-year transitional period. To bring about a clear separation between market and social policy, the ESC suggested that the Commission’s proposed regional programmes be split up into market structural and socio-structural programmes. Adequate EU funds needed to be made available for this purpose. The ESC considered that additional cofinancing should be provided from national or regional coffers; on the other hand, market intervention should be funded exclusively by the EAGGF. The ESC called for a specific wine-growing promotion programme to help environmentally-friendly economic measures. It recommended that Community funds be made available to support the development of better marketing structures in producer areas. It also suggested that social programmes for agriculture be tailored to the special needs of wine-growing. A voluntary grubbing programme should be introduced during the transitional period so that vineyard capacity could be adjusted to market conditions. The ESC emphasised that when production conditions were laid down and oenological practices were authorised, account should be taken of the varying geographical, climatic and weather conditions within Europe ’s wine-growing regions. It therefore did not agree with the European Commission that the number of wine-growing zones could be reduced from seven to three or that there could be a levelling-out of natural minimum alcoholic strengths and oenological practices. Instead it advocated that consideration be given to the classification of wine-growing zones on the basis of objective criteria. As regards the problem of chaptalisation, the ESC noted that this practice was banned in the EU. It could be permitted only as a strictly exceptional measure for a limited period of time in certain wine-growing areas of the EU under conditions to be determined by the Council. In order to avoid distortions of competition between the various EU producer countries, the current aid for the use of concentrated must and rectified concentrate should be maintained as long as the use of sucrose for enrichment purposes was authorised. Appropriate labelling should inform consumers about the enrichment processes used. In addition, there should be two types of distillation: ‘preventive’, or voluntary distillation, to be carried out at the beginning of the marketing year and at an attractive price, and ‘compulsory’ distillation, where the price paid would be lower and based on the surplus quantities to be disposed of. Aid for private storage should be maintained at any event, as a linking measure between years where production was in surplus and those where yields were low. The ESC called for a comprehensive overall programme to promote the sale of wine products, which also provided for the removal of legal, economic and tax barriers. To this end, an ambitious research and market research programme should be drawn up. The ESC also advocated an information and educational programme about the advantages of a moderate level of wine consumption as part of a balanced diet, and about the dangers of misuse. It welcomed the Commission’s proposal to extend the ban on new plantings. However, the right to replanting and the transfer of replanting rights should be used without restriction so that the best land in wine-growing areas was planted out in accordance with a policy on quality. The classification of vine varieties should be standardised at EU level.

1994/12/15
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
1994/12/15
   CSL - Council Meeting
1994/11/16
   CofR - Committee of the Regions: opinion
1994/09/08
   EP - FANTUZZI Giulio (PES) appointed as rapporteur in AGRI
1994/09/07
   EP - DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio (FE) appointed as rapporteur in BUDG
1994/07/21
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
1994/04/06
   EC - Legislative proposal
1994/04/05
   all - Additional information
1994/04/05
   EC - Legislative proposal published

Documents

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

docs/2
date
1994-12-13T00:00:00
docs
title: PE210.264/DEF
committee
BUDG
type
Committee opinion
body
EP
docs/3
date
1995-03-21T00:00:00
docs
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/3
date
1994-12-21T00:00:00
docs
title: PE210.534
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/4
date
1995-04-06T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:TOC
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:SOM:EN:HTML
docs/5
date
1995-03-02T00:00:00
docs
title: PE210.534/B.
type
Committee draft report
body
EP
docs/6
date
1995-03-02T00:00:00
docs
title: PE210.534/AM
type
Amendments tabled in committee
body
EP
docs/7
date
1995-03-21T00:00:00
docs
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs/8
date
1995-04-06T00:00:00
docs
summary
type
Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
events/1/date
Old
1994-04-06T00:00:00
New
1994-04-05T00:00:00
events/5
date
1995-03-20T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-4-1995-0055_EN.html title: A4-0055/1995
events/5
date
1995-03-21T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
title: A4-0055/1995
docs/0/docs/1/url
Old
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1994:194:TOC
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1994:194:SOM:EN:HTML
docs/1
date
1994-11-16T00:00:00
docs
type
Committee of the Regions: opinion
body
CofR
docs/1
date
1994-11-16T00:00:00
docs
type
Committee of the Regions: opinion
body
CofR
docs/4
date
1995-02-22T00:00:00
docs
summary
While welcoming the Commission’s presentation of a proposal for a regulation on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, the ESC regretted that the Commission had not taken account of the ESC’s vital suggestions nor the trade associations’ strong objections to the Council’s communication of 22 July 1993. It called on the new European Commission to amend radically its proposal for a regulation. According to the ESC, the market guidance had to be made a central plank of the reform process. This meant turning away from a centrally-run market. Instead, the European wine industry should be encouraged to become more competitive with other drinks. Moreover, trade barriers such as discriminatory excise duties between drinks in some Member States should be avoided and better sales conditions created for producers and traders. The reform should give the EU’s regions more responsibility for quality and market policy, in accordance with subsidiarity. This would mean, at the same time, deregulation and cutting red tape to encourage economic self-reliance and initiative. This re-directing of European wine policy should, in the ESC’s view, be started at once and completed over a 10-year transitional period. To bring about a clear separation between market and social policy, the ESC suggested that the Commission’s proposed regional programmes be split up into market structural and socio-structural programmes. Adequate EU funds needed to be made available for this purpose. The ESC considered that additional cofinancing should be provided from national or regional coffers; on the other hand, market intervention should be funded exclusively by the EAGGF. The ESC called for a specific wine-growing promotion programme to help environmentally-friendly economic measures. It recommended that Community funds be made available to support the development of better marketing structures in producer areas. It also suggested that social programmes for agriculture be tailored to the special needs of wine-growing. A voluntary grubbing programme should be introduced during the transitional period so that vineyard capacity could be adjusted to market conditions. The ESC emphasised that when production conditions were laid down and oenological practices were authorised, account should be taken of the varying geographical, climatic and weather conditions within Europe ’s wine-growing regions. It therefore did not agree with the European Commission that the number of wine-growing zones could be reduced from seven to three or that there could be a levelling-out of natural minimum alcoholic strengths and oenological practices. Instead it advocated that consideration be given to the classification of wine-growing zones on the basis of objective criteria. As regards the problem of chaptalisation, the ESC noted that this practice was banned in the EU. It could be permitted only as a strictly exceptional measure for a limited period of time in certain wine-growing areas of the EU under conditions to be determined by the Council. In order to avoid distortions of competition between the various EU producer countries, the current aid for the use of concentrated must and rectified concentrate should be maintained as long as the use of sucrose for enrichment purposes was authorised. Appropriate labelling should inform consumers about the enrichment processes used. In addition, there should be two types of distillation: ‘preventive’, or voluntary distillation, to be carried out at the beginning of the marketing year and at an attractive price, and ‘compulsory’ distillation, where the price paid would be lower and based on the surplus quantities to be disposed of. Aid for private storage should be maintained at any event, as a linking measure between years where production was in surplus and those where yields were low. The ESC called for a comprehensive overall programme to promote the sale of wine products, which also provided for the removal of legal, economic and tax barriers. To this end, an ambitious research and market research programme should be drawn up. The ESC also advocated an information and educational programme about the advantages of a moderate level of wine consumption as part of a balanced diet, and about the dangers of misuse. It welcomed the Commission’s proposal to extend the ban on new plantings. However, the right to replanting and the transfer of replanting rights should be used without restriction so that the best land in wine-growing areas was planted out in accordance with a policy on quality. The classification of vine varieties should be standardised at EU level.
type
Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
body
ESC
docs/4
date
1995-02-22T00:00:00
docs
summary
While welcoming the Commission’s presentation of a proposal for a regulation on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, the ESC regretted that the Commission had not taken account of the ESC’s vital suggestions nor the trade associations’ strong objections to the Council’s communication of 22 July 1993. It called on the new European Commission to amend radically its proposal for a regulation. According to the ESC, the market guidance had to be made a central plank of the reform process. This meant turning away from a centrally-run market. Instead, the European wine industry should be encouraged to become more competitive with other drinks. Moreover, trade barriers such as discriminatory excise duties between drinks in some Member States should be avoided and better sales conditions created for producers and traders. The reform should give the EU’s regions more responsibility for quality and market policy, in accordance with subsidiarity. This would mean, at the same time, deregulation and cutting red tape to encourage economic self-reliance and initiative. This re-directing of European wine policy should, in the ESC’s view, be started at once and completed over a 10-year transitional period. To bring about a clear separation between market and social policy, the ESC suggested that the Commission’s proposed regional programmes be split up into market structural and socio-structural programmes. Adequate EU funds needed to be made available for this purpose. The ESC considered that additional cofinancing should be provided from national or regional coffers; on the other hand, market intervention should be funded exclusively by the EAGGF. The ESC called for a specific wine-growing promotion programme to help environmentally-friendly economic measures. It recommended that Community funds be made available to support the development of better marketing structures in producer areas. It also suggested that social programmes for agriculture be tailored to the special needs of wine-growing. A voluntary grubbing programme should be introduced during the transitional period so that vineyard capacity could be adjusted to market conditions. The ESC emphasised that when production conditions were laid down and oenological practices were authorised, account should be taken of the varying geographical, climatic and weather conditions within Europe ’s wine-growing regions. It therefore did not agree with the European Commission that the number of wine-growing zones could be reduced from seven to three or that there could be a levelling-out of natural minimum alcoholic strengths and oenological practices. Instead it advocated that consideration be given to the classification of wine-growing zones on the basis of objective criteria. As regards the problem of chaptalisation, the ESC noted that this practice was banned in the EU. It could be permitted only as a strictly exceptional measure for a limited period of time in certain wine-growing areas of the EU under conditions to be determined by the Council. In order to avoid distortions of competition between the various EU producer countries, the current aid for the use of concentrated must and rectified concentrate should be maintained as long as the use of sucrose for enrichment purposes was authorised. Appropriate labelling should inform consumers about the enrichment processes used. In addition, there should be two types of distillation: ‘preventive’, or voluntary distillation, to be carried out at the beginning of the marketing year and at an attractive price, and ‘compulsory’ distillation, where the price paid would be lower and based on the surplus quantities to be disposed of. Aid for private storage should be maintained at any event, as a linking measure between years where production was in surplus and those where yields were low. The ESC called for a comprehensive overall programme to promote the sale of wine products, which also provided for the removal of legal, economic and tax barriers. To this end, an ambitious research and market research programme should be drawn up. The ESC also advocated an information and educational programme about the advantages of a moderate level of wine consumption as part of a balanced diet, and about the dangers of misuse. It welcomed the Commission’s proposal to extend the ban on new plantings. However, the right to replanting and the transfer of replanting rights should be used without restriction so that the best land in wine-growing areas was planted out in accordance with a policy on quality. The classification of vine varieties should be standardised at EU level.
type
Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
body
ESC
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:SOM:EN:HTML
New
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:TOC
events/2/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/4/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/7/type
Old
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Decision by Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
rapporteur
name: FANTUZZI Giulio date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
1994-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: FANTUZZI Giulio group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
rapporteur
name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 group: Forza Europa Group abbr: FE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
1994-09-07T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio group: Forza Europa Group abbr: FE
activities
  • date: 1994-04-05T00:00:00 body: all type: Additional information
  • date: 1994-04-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1994&nu_doc=117 title: COM(1994)0117 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:51994PC0117:EN body: EC commission: type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 1994-07-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1816 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1816*&MEET_DATE=15/12/1994 type: Debate in Council title: 1816 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1994-12-15T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00 docs: type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A4-0055/1995 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00 docs: type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T4-0156/1995 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1847 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1847*&MEET_DATE=29/05/1995 type: Debate in Council title: 1847 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1995-05-29T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1858 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1858*&MEET_DATE=19/06/1995 type: Debate in Council title: 1858 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1995-06-19T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1901 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1901*&MEET_DATE=22/01/1996 type: Debate in Council title: 1901 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1996-01-22T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1940 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1940*&MEET_DATE=27/06/1996 type: Debate in Council title: 1940 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 body: all type: Additional information
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
committee
AGRI
date
1994-09-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: FANTUZZI Giulio group: Party of European Socialists abbr: PES
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
AGRI
date
1994-09-08T00:00:00
committee_full
Agriculture and Rural Development
rapporteur
group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgets
committee
BUDG
date
1994-09-07T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio group: Forza Europa Group abbr: FE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
BUDG
date
1994-09-07T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgets
rapporteur
group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 1940 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1940*&MEET_DATE=27/06/1996 date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 1901 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1901*&MEET_DATE=22/01/1996 date: 1996-01-22T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 1858 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1858*&MEET_DATE=19/06/1995 date: 1995-06-19T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 1847 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1847*&MEET_DATE=29/05/1995 date: 1995-05-29T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Agriculture and Fisheries meeting_id: 1816 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1816*&MEET_DATE=15/12/1994 date: 1994-12-15T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 1994-04-06T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1994&nu_doc=117 title: EUR-Lex url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1994:194:TOC title: OJ C 194 16.07.1994, p. 0001 title: COM(1994)0117 summary: type: Legislative proposal body: EC
  • date: 1994-11-16T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.cor.europa.eu/CORDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0242)(documentyear:1994)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CDR0242/1994 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1995:210:TOC title: OJ C 210 14.08.1995, p. 0057 type: Committee of the Regions: opinion body: CofR
  • date: 1994-12-13T00:00:00 docs: title: PE210.264/DEF committee: BUDG type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 1994-12-21T00:00:00 docs: title: PE210.534 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 1995-02-22T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:0191)(documentyear:1995)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES0191/1995 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1995:110:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 110 02.05.1995, p. 0030 summary: While welcoming the Commission’s presentation of a proposal for a regulation on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, the ESC regretted that the Commission had not taken account of the ESC’s vital suggestions nor the trade associations’ strong objections to the Council’s communication of 22 July 1993. It called on the new European Commission to amend radically its proposal for a regulation. According to the ESC, the market guidance had to be made a central plank of the reform process. This meant turning away from a centrally-run market. Instead, the European wine industry should be encouraged to become more competitive with other drinks. Moreover, trade barriers such as discriminatory excise duties between drinks in some Member States should be avoided and better sales conditions created for producers and traders. The reform should give the EU’s regions more responsibility for quality and market policy, in accordance with subsidiarity. This would mean, at the same time, deregulation and cutting red tape to encourage economic self-reliance and initiative. This re-directing of European wine policy should, in the ESC’s view, be started at once and completed over a 10-year transitional period. To bring about a clear separation between market and social policy, the ESC suggested that the Commission’s proposed regional programmes be split up into market structural and socio-structural programmes. Adequate EU funds needed to be made available for this purpose. The ESC considered that additional cofinancing should be provided from national or regional coffers; on the other hand, market intervention should be funded exclusively by the EAGGF. The ESC called for a specific wine-growing promotion programme to help environmentally-friendly economic measures. It recommended that Community funds be made available to support the development of better marketing structures in producer areas. It also suggested that social programmes for agriculture be tailored to the special needs of wine-growing. A voluntary grubbing programme should be introduced during the transitional period so that vineyard capacity could be adjusted to market conditions. The ESC emphasised that when production conditions were laid down and oenological practices were authorised, account should be taken of the varying geographical, climatic and weather conditions within Europe ’s wine-growing regions. It therefore did not agree with the European Commission that the number of wine-growing zones could be reduced from seven to three or that there could be a levelling-out of natural minimum alcoholic strengths and oenological practices. Instead it advocated that consideration be given to the classification of wine-growing zones on the basis of objective criteria. As regards the problem of chaptalisation, the ESC noted that this practice was banned in the EU. It could be permitted only as a strictly exceptional measure for a limited period of time in certain wine-growing areas of the EU under conditions to be determined by the Council. In order to avoid distortions of competition between the various EU producer countries, the current aid for the use of concentrated must and rectified concentrate should be maintained as long as the use of sucrose for enrichment purposes was authorised. Appropriate labelling should inform consumers about the enrichment processes used. In addition, there should be two types of distillation: ‘preventive’, or voluntary distillation, to be carried out at the beginning of the marketing year and at an attractive price, and ‘compulsory’ distillation, where the price paid would be lower and based on the surplus quantities to be disposed of. Aid for private storage should be maintained at any event, as a linking measure between years where production was in surplus and those where yields were low. The ESC called for a comprehensive overall programme to promote the sale of wine products, which also provided for the removal of legal, economic and tax barriers. To this end, an ambitious research and market research programme should be drawn up. The ESC also advocated an information and educational programme about the advantages of a moderate level of wine consumption as part of a balanced diet, and about the dangers of misuse. It welcomed the Commission’s proposal to extend the ban on new plantings. However, the right to replanting and the transfer of replanting rights should be used without restriction so that the best land in wine-growing areas was planted out in accordance with a policy on quality. The classification of vine varieties should be standardised at EU level. type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 1995-03-02T00:00:00 docs: title: PE210.534/B. type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 1995-03-02T00:00:00 docs: title: PE210.534/AM type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/JOHtml.do?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:SOM:EN:HTML title: OJ C 109 01.05.1995, p. 0004 title: A4-0055/1995 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:1995:109:TOC title: OJ C 109 01.05.1995, p. 0096-0129 title: T4-0156/1995 summary: type: Text adopted by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
events
  • date: 1994-04-05T00:00:00 type: Additional information body: all summary:
  • date: 1994-04-06T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1994&nu_doc=117 title: EUR-Lex title: COM(1994)0117 summary:
  • date: 1994-07-21T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 1994-12-15T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1816*&MEET_DATE=15/12/1994 title: 1816
  • date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP summary:
  • date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: title: A4-0055/1995
  • date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP summary: The rapporteur recalled the many differences among the Member States and among the regions within a country. That was why his report was so important for the regions and why the vote in plenary had to enhance the spirit of the compromise sought by the Committee on Agriculture. Commissioner FISCHLER agreed that they should refrain from adopting overly rigid mechanisms for quotas and should take account of all of the criteria that influenced production. As regards the regional programmes, he could not take over the amendments (such as Amendments Nos 24 and 35) that relaxed the requirement on the Member States to reduce production. Other amendments (Amendments Nos 25 to 29, 31, 143 to 145 and 160) could not be implemented within the framework of the restrictive budget line. As regards enrichment with sugar, the Commissioner could not take over certain amendments, such as the first part of Amendment No 42, which limited this practice to the regions in which it was currently authorised. The same applied for Amendments Nos 40 to 51, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 119, 122, 148, 167 and 171. Amendment No 48 contradicted the GATT rules. The Commissioner also had to reject Amendments Nos 38 (Spain’s gradual adaptation to Community legislation) and 39 (separate rules for Portugal). Finally, he urged that structural measures be implemented to resolve the problem of overproduction. The rapporteur thus called on the Commissioner to submit to Parliament the summary of its opinion on the amendments to be taken over; this was attached as an annex to COM(94)117 final.
  • date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: title: T4-0156/1995 summary:
  • date: 1995-05-29T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1847*&MEET_DATE=29/05/1995 title: 1847 summary: The Presidency announced that it would submit an advisory note at the next meeting with a view to the Council reaching an agreement on the reform of the wine sector.
  • date: 1995-06-19T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1858*&MEET_DATE=19/06/1995 title: 1858
  • date: 1996-01-22T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1901*&MEET_DATE=22/01/1996 title: 1901 summary: The President declared that he intended re-opening the debate on the reform of the common organisation of the market in wine, as proposed by the Commission in 1994 and already discussed on several occasions by the ministers. According to the President, the market situation had completely changed in the last few years, moving from a situation of significant surpluses to a state of relative balance, which had to be stabilised. There was also good reason to take account of the new situation following the conclusion of the GATT and to take steps to prevent the Community wine-producing sector from suffering unfair competition. Commissioner Fischler pointed out that the Commission was prepared to discuss possible amendments to its proposal in view of the new factual data and in consideration of the opinion expressed by Parliament. The Council entrusted the Special Committee on Agriculture with the task of analysing the market situation and examining the proposal in the light of this initiative from the Commission.
  • date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1940*&MEET_DATE=27/06/1996 title: 1940
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 type: Additional information body: all summary:
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
AGRI/4/05813
New
  • AGRI/4/05813
procedure/subject
Old
  • 3.10.06.08 Wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages
New
3.10.06.08
Wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages
links/European Commission/title
Old
PreLex
New
EUR-Lex
activities/2/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
525efa1eb819f23007000000
New
53ba7207b819f24b3300008b
activities/4/committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
525efa1eb819f23007000000
New
53ba7207b819f24b3300008b
committees/1/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
525efa1eb819f23007000000
New
53ba7207b819f24b3300008b
activities
  • date: 1994-04-05T00:00:00 body: all type: Additional information
  • date: 1994-04-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=1994&nu_doc=117 title: COM(1994)0117 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:51994PC0117:EN body: EC type: Legislative proposal published commission:
  • date: 1994-07-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1816 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1816*&MEET_DATE=15/12/1994 type: Debate in Council title: 1816 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1994-12-15T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 1995-03-21T00:00:00 docs: type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A4-0055/1995 body: EP committees: body: EP responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • date: 1995-04-05T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00 docs: type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T4-0156/1995 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1847 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1847*&MEET_DATE=29/05/1995 type: Debate in Council title: 1847 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1995-05-29T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1858 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1858*&MEET_DATE=19/06/1995 type: Debate in Council title: 1858 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1995-06-19T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1901 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1901*&MEET_DATE=22/01/1996 type: Debate in Council title: 1901 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1996-01-22T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 1940 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=1940*&MEET_DATE=27/06/1996 type: Debate in Council title: 1940 council: Agriculture and Fisheries date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 body: all type: Additional information
  • date: 1998-12-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: End of procedure in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee: AGRI date: 1994-09-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Agriculture and Rural Development rapporteur: group: PSE name: FANTUZZI Giulio
  • body: EP responsible: False committee: BUDG date: 1994-09-07T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgets rapporteur: group: FE name: DI PRIMA Pietro Antonio
links
European Commission
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
AGRI/4/05813
reference
1994/0107(CNS)
subtype
Legislation
legal_basis
stage_reached
Procedure lapsed or withdrawn
instrument
Regulation
title
Market in wine: reform of the common organisation of the market COM
type
CNS - Consultation procedure
subject
3.10.06.08 Wine, alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages