Brussels, 13/01/2000 (Agence Europe) - The Commission debated on Wednesday as a college the legal implications of Italy's reservation regarding ratification of the trade, development and cooperation agreement between the Union and South Africa on provisional application of the accord, which has theoretically been in force since 1 January 2000. The Member State Permanent Representatives took up the subject on Thursday, in an introductory exchange of views, without coming to any decision.
Discussions will continue in the coming weeks, both to clarify the situation from a legal point of view and to allow for progress in negotiation of the separate agreement on wine and spirits. The uncertain outcome of the latter is the source of the problem raised formally by the Italian Government, which wishes to obtain guarantees concerning protection of the name "Grappa" and, more recently and less formally, by the Greek Government over protection of the name "Ouzo" (see EUROPE of 8 January, page 8).
"The Commission takes the Italian reservation very seriously but, from the legal standpoint, the situation still has to be examined in detail by the Council and the Commission. The Commission is not in a position to state its view at present. It is trying to find a political solution to the basic problem, the subject of Italy's concerns. At this stage, the Commission and the Council consider that a new Council decision will be needed to dispel all uncertainty", declared Philippe Lowe, Director General for Development at the Commission, at a press conference on Thursday in Brussels. In his view, the Italian reservation raises a "very serious problem, a problem of principle that has long-term implications" for the protection of traditional names in future agreements the Union is likely to conclude with emerging countries. The Commission's Legal Department takes the view that implementation of Article 25 of the Vienna Convention governing mixed agreements, the article on which Italy bases its reservation, will set a precedent for the negotiation of all future EU trade agreements.
Philippe Lowe added in this regard that if the EU/South Africa Agreement had been concluded in the form of a Community accord (as the Commission and South African had initially envisioned it, before the Member States called for it to be changed into a mixed Member State/Community agreement due to its political chapter), the Vienna Convention would not apply, and Italy's reservation would be legally unfounded.
Until this problem is settled, uncertainty will continue to exist as to the validity of the agreement that the customs authorities of most Union Member States are already applying, based on the new tariff provisions published as a regulation in Official Journal L 337 of 30 December last. South Africa has also issued instructions for the agreement to be implemented. Philippe Lowe highlighted the urgent nature and importance of a solution, "to avoid the risk of calling a historic agreement into question".
Asked about the reasons for the delay in Italian and Greek reservations to ratification of an agreement concluded in March and signed in October 1999, Philippe Lowe explained in essence that these two Member States -like the Commission- had thought that South Africa would take the same course as other countries (such as Australia in particular) with which the Union had already negotiated, agreeing to offer protection of traditional product names. "It was in October that South Africa declared that it did not wish to go further than protection of the geographical names 'port' and 'sherry'", he declared.