The European Dairy Association raised serious concerns with the European Commission regarding a French draft decree introducing mandatory origin labelling for certain milk and meat products.

The Ombudsman inquired into the matter and found that the Commission’s implicit approval of the French measure complied, from a procedural point of view, with the relevant legal requirements, in particular Article 45(3) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

As regards the substance of the Commission’s decision, the Ombudsman found that it was not clear in what way the complainant considers the Commission to have failed to make sure that France had complied with the relevant substantive requirements. Consequently, the Ombudsman found that at this stage the complainant had not yet demonstrated maladministration on the part of the Commission regarding the substantive aspect of its allegation.

The background to the complaint

1. In 2015, France drafted a legislative decree requiring producers of milk, food containing milk products and food containing meat to provide information on the country of origin of the products. These labelling rules would apply only for a preliminary period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018. Before the end of this period, France would provide a report to the Commission which would allow it to review consumer patterns, and the potential impact on the internal market.

2. On 12 April 2016, the Commission consulted the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (composed of representatives from the Commission and the Member States)[1] on the matter. During that meeting, a number of Member States raised concerns about the negative impact of the French measure on the access of non-French ingredient suppliers, particularly on small- and medium-sized enterprises, to food production and distribution in France. Other delegations did not oppose mandatory origin indication as such, but expressed a preference for a harmonised approach at EU level, while a few delegations supported the French draft decree. The Commission reminded the Standing Committee that the EU food information rules allow Member States to adopt national measures on origin information on food under certain conditions. It also stated that “the topic was intensively debated at the co-decision stage and that the political and legal context has significantly evolved in recent years”.[2]

3. On 1 July 2016, the  European Dairy Association expressed serious concerns to the Commission regarding the French initiative on mandatory origin labelling. In its view, the “French anti-single-market approach challenges the functioning of the European Single Market by reintroducing national barriers among Member States. Furthermore, unjustified national rules on mandatory origin labelling will hinder harmonised implementation of the Food Information Regulation”. Consequently, it asked the Commission to “clearly speak [out] against the French decree”.

4. On 18 July 2016, the Commissioner responsible for health and food safety informed the complainant that the Commission had not raised any objection to the French measure. The Commissioner stated that the potential effects on the internal market, including its impact on imported foods from other Member States, would be evaluated in the context of the French authorities’ report due in 2018.

5. Dissatisfied with the Commission’s position, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman with its grievance in August 2016. While a number of issues could not be dealt with by the Ombudsman due to their inadmissibility, the Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the underlying grievance.

The inquiry

6. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into the following allegation:

The Commission was wrong not to have raised any objection to the French draft decree introducing mandatory origin labelling for certain milk and meat products.

The Ombudsman's assessment

7. Member States may adopt new measures requiring producers of milk, food containing milk products and food containing meat to provide information on the country of origin of these products - such as the French draft decree - three months after having notified such measures to the Commission, provided that the Commission does not issue a negative opinion on the matter.[3]

8. On 12 April 2016, the Commission consulted the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed on the French Decree.[4] Following that meeting, the Commission decided not to issue a negative opinion on the French measure, and informed the complainant of this on 18 July 2016. Strictly speaking, from a procedural point of view, this decision complies with the legal requirements, in particular Article 45(3) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

9. Consequently, there was no maladministration by the Commission as regards the procedural aspect of the allegation.

10. Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers also sets out certain substantive requirements for the Member States to be allowed to require origin labelling. In particular, Article 39 requires Member States to provide evidence that the majority of consumers attach significant value to the provision of that information. However, it is not clear from the complaint in what way the complainant considers the Commission to have failed to make sure that France complied with these substantive requirements. Nor is it clear whether the complainant has brought any such concerns to the Commission’s attention.

11. On 6 September 2016, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team contacted the complainant’s representative by telephone, asking if he had any evidence or information to show that France had not complied with any substantive requirement set out in Regulation 1169/2011, for instance Article 39. The Ombudsman’s inquiry team also asked the representative in what way the complainant considers that the Commission has made an incorrect assessment of the draft decree from a substantive point of view. The representative explained that the complainant had raised the matter with the Commission in general terms only and that, pending the outcome of a request for access to documents on the matter, he did not possess further information or proof.

12. Hence, the complainant has not yet sufficiently demonstrated that the Commission committed maladministration on the substantive aspect of this allegation. The Ombudsman reassured the complainant that, should it raise such concerns with the Commission, and should it consider the Commission’s response to be inadequate, it could again complain to the Ombudsman.

Conclusions

On the basis of the inquiry into this complaint, the Ombudsman closes it with the following conclusions:

The Commission’s handling of the matter was correct from a procedural point of view and there was no maladministration in this regard.

As regards the substantive aspect of the allegation, the complainant has not yet demonstrated that there was any maladministration by the Commission.

The complainant will be informed of this decision.

 

Strasbourg, 12/09/2016

 

[1] in line with Article 45(2) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

[2] The full minutes of the meeting can be accessed online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/docs/reg-com_gfl_20160412_sum.pdf

[3] Article 45(3) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.

[4] In line with Article 45(2) of Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.