REPORT on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC

16.12.2005 - (COM(2004)0708 – C6‑0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD)) - ***I

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection
Rapporteur: Jacques Toubon

Amendments

• 032-032 (PDF - 88 KB)
• 032-032 (DOC - 91 KB)
• 033-033 (PDF - 92 KB)
• 033-033 (DOC - 93 KB)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC

(COM(2004)0708 – C6‑0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2004)0708)[1],

–   having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 95 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6‑0160/2004),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection and the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy(A6‑0412/2005),

1.  Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2.  Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend the proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 4
(4) Overriding requirements relating to consumer protection to maintain nominal quantities are unlikely to occur, as consumer interests are protected by a number of directives which were adopted after Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, notably Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers.	(4) Consumer protection is facilitated by directives which were adopted after Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, notably Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers.
Justification
The Directive on the indication of prices is just one of the means for protecting consumers. Studies carried out by the Commission show that, in general, the unit price information is neither used nor understood by consumers. What is more, it is not applied at all points of sale and, for certain products, is an unsatisfactory and sometimes misleading method of providing the information consumers need to make properly informed purchasing decisions. Therefore it should not be considered as ensuring protection of consumers on its own.
Amendment 2 RECITAL 5
(5) An impact assessment, including a wide consultation of all interested stakeholders, indicated that free nominal quantities increase the freedom of producers to provide goods according to consumer tastes and enhance competition as regards quality and price on the internal market.	(5) An impact assessment, including a consultation of all interested stakeholders, indicated that, in many sectors, free nominal quantities increase the freedom of producers to provide goods according to consumer tastes and enhance competition as regards quality and price on the internal market. In other sectors, however, it is more appropriate, in the interests of consumers and business, to retain mandatory nominal quantities for the time being.
Justification
During the consultation of stakeholders, which included not only consumer associations, particularly those representing vulnerable groups, and environmentalist organisations but also anti-fraud offices and industry representatives, it was apparent that a broad consensus existed in favour of maintaining mandatory ranges. Furthermore, before mandatory ranges were brought in there was such a proliferation of similar sizes around the sizes which sold most that consumer confusion had become widespread.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 5 A (new)
	(5a) Implementation of the directive should be accompanied by an information campaign aimed at consumers and industry operators in order to ensure that the concept of unit pricing is properly understood.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 5 B (new)
	(5b) A study devoted to the impact of the directive on the most vulnerable consumers (the elderly, the visually impaired, the disabled, consumers with a low level of educational attainment, etc.) has confirmed the theory that deregulating packaging formats would entail major drawbacks for these consumers, while triggering a reduction in the number of brands offered to the consumer and hence reducing choice and, consequently, competition in the market.
Justification
In August 2005 Parliament commissioned an impact study aimed at analysing the consequences of the proposed deregulation for the vulnerable categories of consumer, the findings of which not only call into question the theory that deregulation would automatically entail a boost to competitiveness but also very clearly underline the need to consider a derogation from liberalisation for a certain range of products aimed at protecting these more vulnerable categories of consumer.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 7
(7) However, in certain sectors such deregulation could result in disproportionately heavy extra costs, especially for small and medium sized enterprises. For those sectors, therefore, existing Community legislation should be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to ensure that Community nominal quantities are fixed at least in the case of those products most sold to consumers.	(7) However, in other sectors, free sizes previously gave rise to serious pack size proliferation and market complications. In those sectors such deregulation could result in disproportionately heavy extra costs, especially for small and medium sized enterprises, as well as consumer confusion. Furthermore, benefits from the use of environmentally-friendly lightweight glass could be jeopardised by deregulation. For those sectors, therefore, existing Community legislation should be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to ensure that Community nominal quantities are fixed for the most commonly traded sizes.
Justification
In some sectors, prior to the introduction of mandatory sizes, numerous different sizes were on sale, often clustered around the most commonly traded quantities, which resulted in widespread consumer confusion and extra costs to small producers in particular. An end to mandatory sizes in these sectors might recreate the conditions in which these difficulties could return causing problems for both producers and consumers.
Amendment 6 RECITAL 8
(8) Since the maintenance of mandatory nominal quantities should be regarded as a derogation, it should be limited in time, taking into account the appropriate investment cycle for the equipment in the respective sectors. For these sectors, however, existing Community legislation must be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to limit the fixed Community nominal quantities only to those most sold to consumers.	(8) Although the maintenance of mandatory nominal quantities can be justified for certain sectors, in the light of experience and in order to meet consumer needs, periodic reassessment of Community legislation will still be necessary. It should be reviewed in the future to check whether it still meets the needs of consumers and producers.
Justification
As deregulation carries the risk of again causing a proliferation of sizes to the detriment of consumers, it should be stressed that mandatory quantities are not justified solely for reasons to do with production costs.
Amendment 7 RECITAL 9
(9) In order to promote transparency, all nominal quantities for pre-packed products should be set in a single legislative text, and Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC should be repealed.	(9) In order to promote transparency, all nominal quantities for pre-packed products should be set in a single legislative text, and Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC should be repealed. The Commission should examine what initiatives could be taken or promoted to make weight and volume indications on consumer product labelling more readable. This, together with maintaining mandatory ranges for certain basic products, could be very helpful for certain categories of vulnerable consumers, such as the disabled and the elderly.
Justification
The rapporteur recognises the problems that liberalising ranges causes for the disabled and for the elderly. These groups are opposed to the abolition of ranges. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why maintaining ranges for certain basic products was suggested. It is easier for these groups to use local shops, which in any case tend to ignore the obligation to indicate unit prices. Deregulation of sizes would thus merely increase these people’s lack of certainty as to the quantity and value of their purchases.

Amendment 8

RECITAL 10 A (new)

	(10a) In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on better law-making, Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.

Amendment 9

ARTICLE 1

This Directive lays down rules on nominal quantities for products put up in pre-packages. It shall apply to pre-packed products and pre-packages, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 76/211/EEC.	This Directive lays down rules on nominal quantities for products put up in pre-packages. It shall apply to pre-packed products and pre-packages, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 76/211/EEC. It shall not apply to pre-packed bread, spreadable fats, butter, tea or coffee, for which national rules on nominal quantities shall continue to apply.

Justification

The packaging of staple foods traditionally differs from Member State to Member State. It is important to maintain existing national ranges on nominal quantities in the interests of consumer protection. Moreover, if deregulation was fully implemented in this sector, the costs to many small and medium-sized enterprises of trying to compete with supermarkets and larger companies would be likely to be disproportionate and in some cases prohibitive. The solution proposed would allow national packaging ranges to be maintained whilst not impeding the import of pre-packaged products of any weight or volume from other EU countries.

Amendment 10 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1 a (new)
	This Directive shall not apply to the products listed in the Annex which are sold in duty-free shops for consumption outside the EU.
Justification
Goods sold in duty-free shops are not subject to EU mandatory pack sizes because they are used outside the internal market. If this exemption is not retained in the new legislation the sizes used will become illegal. It would also be contradictory for a directive that sought to simplify the existing legislation and deregulate most sectors to introduce a provision concerning points of sale to which the existing legislation does not apply and whose application would bring no additional benefit.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 3
Until [20 years after the date mentioned in Article 9], Member States shall ensure that the products specified in point 3 of the Annex and put up in pre-packages in the intervals listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex are placed on the market only if they are pre-packed in the nominal quantities listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex.	Member States shall ensure that the products specified in point 3 of the Annex and put up in pre-packages in the intervals listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex are placed on the market only if they are pre-packed in the nominal quantities listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex.
Justification
It is inappropriate to determine in 2005 the regulatory framework that will be applicable in 2025 when we have no idea now of the market conditions that will prevail so far in the future.
Amendment 12 ARTICLE 4
1. Member States may not, on grounds relating to the nominal quantities, refuse, prohibit or restrict the placing on the market of pre-packed products which are sold in aerosols and listed in point 4 of the Annex, and which satisfy the requirements of this Directive.
2. The aerosol containers shall indicate their nominal capacity, in accordance with point 4 (a) of the Annex. The indication shall be such as not to create confusion with the nominal volume.	1. The aerosol dispensers shall indicate their total nominal capacity. The indication shall be such as not to create confusion with the nominal volume of their contents.
3. By way of derogation from Article 8 (1) (e) of Council Directive 75/324/EEC, products which are sold in aerosols and which comply with this Directive need not be marked with the nominal weight of their contents.	2. By way of derogation from Article 8 (1) (e) of Council Directive 75/324/EEC, products which are sold in aerosol dispensers need not be marked with the nominal weight of their contents.
Amendment 13 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1
1. For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, where two or more individual pre-packages make up a multi-pack, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to each individual pre-package.	1. For the purposes of Article 3, where two or more individual pre-packages make up a multi-pack, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to each individual pre-package.
Amendment 14 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 1, SUBPARAGRAPH 1
1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [12 months after the date mentioned in Article 9] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions and a correlation table between those provisions and this Directive.	1. Member States shall adopt and publish, by [12 months after the date mentioned in Article 9] at the latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions.
Amendment 15 ARTICLE 8, PARAGRAPH 2 A (new)
	2a. The nominal quantities within the intervals which are currently sold but are no longer listed in the Annex can continue to be placed on the market until stocks are exhausted for up to 18 months after the entry into force of this Directive.
Justification
Under the new Directive certain sizes currently authorised will no longer be able to be sold. It seems appropriate therefore to provide for an adjustment phase so that economic operators are not disadvantaged by the new legislation.
Amendment 16 ARTICLE 8 A (new)
	Article 8a Report
	The Commission shall submit a report on the application and effects of this Directive to the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions by [eight years after the date mentioned in Article 9] at the latest, and every ten years thereafter. Where necessary, the report shall be accompanied by a proposal for revision.
Justification
We believe that a revision clause is more appropriate than a provision stipulating that the regulatory framework will no longer be applicable in 2025 because we have no idea now of the market conditions that will prevail so far in the future.
Amendment 17 ANNEX, POINT 1, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE
	Drinking milk On the interval from 100ml – 1 500ml only the following 7 sizes: Ml: 100 — 200 — 250 — 500 — 750 — 1 000 — 1 500
Justification
Consumers habitually buy certain sizes. If ranges were liberalised, distributors could try to undercut each other by reducing each size in order to make a slightly bigger profit. Furthermore, as consumers are used to buying certain sizes they could be misled into buying a cheaper bottle of milk without realising that it contained a smaller volume (even if the price per litre is indicated).

Amendment 18

ANNEX, POINT 1, NEW ROW IN TABLE

		For drinking milk sold in returnable containers, the following sizes may also apply:
		Ml: 189 – 284 and multiples thereof

Justification

Drinking milk is a staple part of the average consumer's diet. It should, therefore, be subject to mandatory sizes. Provision should also be made for national traditions, having regard also to the environmental benefits to be gained by the reuse of containers.

Amendment 19

ANNEX, POINT 1, NEW ROW IN TABLE

Or, where the system of imperial units of measurement is in force: On the interval from one third of a pint - 6 pints only the following 8 sizes:   Pint: 1/3-1/2-1-2-3-4-5-6	Or, where the system of impe follo si   Pint: 1/3-1/2-1-2-3-4-5-6			Or, where the system of imperial units of measurement is in force: On the interval from one third of a pint - 6 pints only the following 8 sizes:   Pint: 1/3-1/2-1-2-3-4-5-6	Or, where the system of imperial units of measurement is in force: On the interval from one third of a pint - 6 pints only the following 8 sizes:   Pint: 1/3-1/2-1-2-3-4-5-6

Justification

Consumers habitually buy certain sizes. If ranges were liberalised, distributors could try to undercut each other by reducing each size in order to make a slightly bigger profit. Furthermore, as consumers are used to buying certain sizes they could be misled into buying a cheaper bottle of milk without realising that it contained a smaller volume (even if the price per litre/pint is indicated).

Amendment 20 ANNEX, POINT 1, SIXTH ROW IN TABLE
Spirits On the interval from 100ml – 1 500ml only the following 7 sizes: Ml: 100 — 200 — 350 — 500 — 700 —1 000 — 1 500	Spirits On the interval from 100ml – 2 000 ml only the following 9 sizes: Ml: 100 — 200 — 350 — 500 — 700 —1 000 — 1 500 — 1 750 — 2 000
Justification
Bigger pack sizes often mean that lower prices can be offered, which can make products more attractive to consumers. The trend in European markets where this is recognised is an increasing preference for these large sizes. With a range that currently goes up to 4.5 litres, deregulation of large sizes could cause consumers to make mistakes if there were a proliferation of very similar bottle sizes. On the other hand, producers could benefit from economies of scale if they were able to place on the EU market a new size that was authorised only in third countries. If that size were sufficiently different from others in the range it would not cause consumers to make mistakes.
Amendment 21 ANNEX, POINT 2, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE
	Butter On the interval 100g – 1 000g only the following 6 sizes: g: 100 — 125 — 200 (only for packs of quantities of 50g or less not intended to be sold individually) — 250 — 500 — 1 000
Justification
If ranges were liberalised, distributors could try to undercut each other by reducing each size in order to make a slightly bigger profit. Furthermore, as consumers are used to buying certain sizes they could be misled into buying a cheaper pack of butter without realising that it weighed less (even if the price per kilo is indicated).
Amendment 22 ANNEX, POINT 2, NEW ROW IN TABLE
	Ground or unground roasted coffee On the interval 250g – 1 000g only the following 4 sizes: g: 250 — 500 — 750 — 1 000
Justification
The existing ranges should be maintained, particularly in the interests of the most vulnerable consumers.
Amendment 23 ANNEX, POINT 2, NEW ROW IN TABLE
	Dried pasta On the interval 125g – 10 000g only the following 10 sizes: g: 125 — 250 — 500 — 1 000 — 1 500 — 2 000 — 3 000 — 4 000 — 5 000 — 10 000
Justification
The existing ranges should be maintained, particularly in the interests of the most vulnerable consumers.
Amendment 24 ANNEX, POINT 2, NEW ROW IN TABLE
	Rice On the interval 125g – 10 000g only the following 8 sizes: g: 125 — 250 — 500 — 1 000 — 2 000 — 2 500 — 5 000 — 10 000
Justification
The existing ranges should be maintained, particularly in the interests of the most vulnerable consumers.
Amendment 25 ANNEX, TABLE 2, ROW 2 A (new)
	brown sugar: on the interval 250g – 1 500g only the following 5 sizes: g: 250 — 500 — 750 — 1 000 — 1 500
Justification
The existing ranges should be maintained.
Amendment 26 ANNEX, POINT 3, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE
	Butter Products as defined in Part A (milk fats) of the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2991/94 of 5 December 1994 laying down standards for spreadable fats1, and supplied directly to the final consumer.
	---------------- 1 OJ L 316, 9.12.1994, p.2
Or. fr
Justification
This provides a definition of the new category, ‘butter’, in the directive’s annex by defining the products it comprises, i.e. all products with exclusively milk-originated fat.
This covers the ‘butter’, ‘low-fat butter’, ‘half-butter’ and ‘spreadable milk fats’ that are everyday staple foods.
Maintaining a range for these products makes it possible to:
-          minimise consumer confusion about these basic products, since unit pricing is not  sufficient to enable them to make a rapid comparison between two products with   different volumes,
-          optimise the use of industrial plant and thus offer better prices to consumers,
-          prevent distributors undercutting each other by reducing pack sizes to make a slightly      higher profit (which, however, entails very expensive investment for the industry).
Amendment 27 ANNEX, POINT 3, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE
	Ground or unground roasted coffee Ground or unground roasted coffee, decaffeinated or non-decaffeinated, covered by heading 09.01 of the common customs tariff.
Or. fr
Justification
This amendment aims to include a definition in the annex to clarify Amendment 17 in the draft report.
Amendment 28 ANNEX, POINT 3, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE
	Dried pasta Dried pasta covered by heading 19.03 of the common customs tariff
Or. fr
Justification
This amendment aims to include a definition in the annex to clarify Amendment 18 in the draft report.

Amendment 29

ANNEX, POINT 3, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE

	Rice Rice covered by heading 10.06 of the common customs tariff

Or. fr

Justification

This amendment aims to include a definition in the annex to clarify Amendment 19 in the draft report.

Amendment by Jacques Toubon

Amendment 30

ANNEX, POINT 3, NEW ENTRY IN TABLE

	Drinking milk Products as defined in Article 3 of Regulation 2597/97 of 18 December 1997 intended to be supplied without further processing to the final consumer

Or. fr

Justification

This is to include in the annex to the directive a definition of the new category, ‘drinking milk’.

This covers ‘white’ milk which is widely consumed and is an everyday staple food.

Maintaining a range for these products makes it possible to:

- minimise consumer confusion about these basic products, since unit pricing is not sufficient to enable them to make a rapid comparison between two products with different volumes,

- optimise the use of industrial plant and thus offer better prices to consumers,

- prevent distributors undercutting each other by reducing pack sizes to make a slightly higher profit (which, however, entails very expensive investment for the industry).

Consequently, this range does not cover products such as flavoured milk and milk-based drinks, which are produced in different volumes, for a different market, and are consumed on different occasions, from ‘white’ milk. With regard to these specialised products the industry must be left free to innovate and develop new products and the consumer must be free to choose them.

Amendment 31 ANNEX, POINT 4, INTRODUCTORY PART
The ranges below apply to all products sold in aerosols with the exception of aromatic waters, hair lotions, pre-shave and after shave lotions containing less than 3% by volume of natural or synthetic perfume oil and less than 70% by volume of pure ethyl alcohol, and of medicinal products.	The ranges below apply to all products sold in aerosols with the exception of: (a) alcohol-based cosmetic products containing more than 3% by volume of natural or synthetic perfume oil and more than 70% by volume of pure ethyl alcohol, (b) medicinal products.
Justification
Despite its intention, the Commission proposal does not maintain the existing exceptions under Directive 80/232/EEC. This amendment rectifies that error in a more readable form.

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This revision aims to consolidate the existing legislation in a single act and to repeal (or deregulate) all existing pack sizes, while maintaining the existing regulation based on total harmonisation in certain specific sectors. In general terms, this proposal is part of a multiannual drive, backed by the EU governments, to simplify the internal market legislation.

1. Current legislative situation

When it was realised, in the 1960s, that different national rules on nominal quantities of pre-packed products were an obstacle to the free movement of goods, the Community set about harmonising them. To our knowledge, the Community legislation in question, which has been amended several times, has never been consolidated or codified, even though it is highly detailed[1].

Despite the measures taken, those undertakings operating solely on the national market were not obliged to adhere to the new Community provisions. The harmonising regulation was of an optional nature and stipulated that only products conforming to Community legislation would benefit from free circulation.

Certain products, however, were subject to total harmonisation, which meant that all national sizes for these products were abolished and Community sizes became mandatory for all operators. The first Community legislation on ranges of sizes for pre-packed products dates from 1975[2].

Over the years the need for a revision became apparent as the aforementioned directives proved difficult to implement, particularly as a result of the wide variety of rules and practices applying to ranges: certain ranges had been made mandatory while others had remained optional. Member States therefore retained the right to fix ranges for these products at the national level. In certain cases the variety of rules led to a compartmentalisation into different national markets within the European Community.

Furthermore, the Court of Justice of the European Communities confirmed this difficulty in the Cidrerie Ruwet case[3]. The Court ruled that mutual recognition case law (‘Cassis de Dijon’) also applied to national pack sizes[4].

After carrying out an impact assessment the Commission found free sizes to be the best solution as they allow full competition for industry and freedom of choice for consumers without compromising the environmental aims of the Community. However, in its proposal it also supports maintaining the existing regulation based on total harmonisation in certain sectors. Mandatory ranges could be justified in very specific sectors where Community rules had already fixed harmonised mandatory sizes: i.e. wines, spirits, soluble coffee, aerosols and white sugar.

Under this same proposal, however, the maintenance of mandatory nominal quantities would only be a derogation from the general policy to deregulate nominal quantities, and would be subject to a time limit of 20 years.

2. Short justification

Mandatory standardisation of pack sizes seems to have the clear benefit of protecting consumers against being misled over volumes because standard sizes are well known, easy to understand and the same in all points of sale in the EU. It would also ensure fair competition between producers.

On the other hand, some, such as the European Commission, believe that for many products, particularly food products, liberalising pack sizes would promote competition through innovation, while offering a wider choice for consumers, whose habits change with time.

Opinions differ considerably, depending on the sector concerned, about whether deregulation is necessary. Those in favour of repealing the existing directives point, in particular, to the obligation to indicate unit prices (Directive 98/6[5]), which they claim provide sufficient information, while those opposed to abolishing ranges highlight the ease of using established ranges, which means there is no need to read labels.

Having consulted various sectors and consumer organisations, the rapporteur believes that the deregulation proposed by the Commission is broadly well-founded. Directive 98/6, which lays down an obligation to indicate the unit price, removed one of the motivations for this regulation and, according to many sources, offers considerable consumer protection while also allowing for research and innovation.

Major retailers also seem to support the Commission’s approach, believing that the abolition of ranges would allow them to offer increasingly competitive products.

Taking into account these different opinions, the rapporteur nevertheless believes that a derogation should apply to certain basic products which should continue to be subject to mandatory ranges. While the sectors concerned have not always been able to reach agreement at European level, many of the views expressed indicate that these sectors are committed to maintaining the existing mandatory ranges. The rapporteur felt that when a particular sector (at national or European level) was in favour of maintaining the existing legislation then that view should be taken into account.

This is the case with coffee, butter, salt, rice, pasta and drinking milk. These products form the basis of our daily diet. For them, the existing rules offer consumers a sufficiently wide range to meet their expectations in terms of consumption needs and to allow for product comparison in a 25-member European Union. Deregulation would create costs relating to investment and, at the same time, there would be a risk of production tools rapidly becoming obsolete. This would undoubtedly cause problems for small and medium-sized enterprises. The rapporteur is therefore convinced that ranges are useful in the sectors mentioned. There is even a case for supplementing them. These ranges provide an assurance of complete transparency for consumers and of fair competition for industry.

In addition, spirit producers subject to mandatory standardisation of pack sizes believe that the proposal covers an interval which is too limited and does not take into account the foreseeable sales trend, which is towards increasing sales of larger volumes, over a litre, or even a litre and a half. The rapporteur suggests extending the range up to two litres to allow for future developments in the market.

Goods sold in duty-free shops are not subject to mandatory pack sizes in the EU because they are used outside the internal market. If this exemption is not retained in this new proposal the sizes used would become illegal. It would be contradictory if a directive that sought to simplify the existing legislation and deregulate most sectors were to introduce a provision concerning points of sale to which the existing legislation does not apply and whose application would bring no additional benefit.

Moreover, the proposal only envisages maintaining the ranges for the products listed in the Annex for a transitional period, as it provides for the automatic abolition of the ranges after 20 years (Article 3). There seems little justification for this provision. After all, how can we decide in 2005 the regulatory framework that will be applicable in 2025 when we have no idea now of the market conditions that will prevail so far in the future. Consequently, the rapporteur proposes amending this provision and suggests including a clause providing for a ten-yearly review.

Finally, the rapporteur recognises the problems that liberalising ranges causes for the disabled and for the elderly. These groups are opposed to the abolition of ranges. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why maintaining ranges for certain products was suggested. It is easier for these groups to use local shops, which in any case tend to ignore the obligation to indicate unit prices. Deregulation of sizes would thus merely increase these people’s lack of certainty as to the quantity and value of their purchases.

Bearing in mind the directive adopted by the European Parliament on 23 February 2005 on unfair commercial practices, one of the aims of which is to protect vulnerable consumers, the Commission is asked to examine what it could do at Community level to improve the readability for vulnerable consumers of weight and volume indications. The Member States are also asked to make a greater effort in this regard.

The European Parliament also commissioned in August 2005 an impact study to analyse the consequences of the proposed deregulation on the vulnerable categories of consumer (the elderly, the visually impaired, the disabled, consumers with a low level of educational attainment, etc.). This is the first time therefore that the original proposals of a rapporteur have been the subject of an impact study requested by Parliament. The findings of this study concluded that the majority of consumers are not aware of unit prices; furthermore, the findings challenge the Commission's theory that deregulation would automatically entail a boost to competition in the marketplace since the number of brands on offer to consumers would be reduced consequently. The study provides clear backing for the proposal to derogate from liberalisation for certain basic foodstuffs in order to protect the most vulnerable consumers. It also demonstrates that the liberalisation of packaging guarantees neither increased competition between producers nor increased choice for consumers nor a satisfactory response to the needs of the largest and weakest categories of consumer.

26.4.2005

OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY, RESEARCH AND ENERGY

for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection

on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC

(COM(2004)0708 – C6‑0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD))

Draftsman: John Purvis

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

The current legislation on pack sizes for pre-packed products is complex and lacks transparency. The legislation covers some 40 products. For some of them (like wine and spirits) mandatory sizes are fixed at Community level. For others, optional Community rules on sizes are in place, but Member States retain the right to fix ranges at national level. This has led to a variety of Community and national rules on sizes and a general confusion in the internal market, especially after the Cidrerie-Ruwet case permitted the marketing throughout the EU of nationally sanctioned sizes.

In this proposal, all existing mandatory or optional fixed pack sizes are abolished, with the exception of a few specific sectors (i.e. wine, spirits, soluble coffee and white sugar) where mandatory sizes within certain ranges are maintained. The Commission proposes even this should lapse after 20 years. Your draftsman suggests instead reviews at approximately ten year intervals.

In general, this opinion welcomes the Commission's proposal. It is a good example of deregulation and simplification of EU and national legislation.

Free sizes increase the flexibility for companies to adapt their product sizes to new consumer needs and changing demands. They will boost innovation and increase consumer choice. Experience has shown that in sectors where sizes are free, companies tend to focus more on consumer demand and concentrate on product innovation. This product innovation often opens up and develops new markets and goes hand in hand with process innovation.

Legislation on labelling, unit pricing and misleading advertising is more important to consumer protection than limiting consumer choice by fixing sizes.

However, in some specific sectors there is a case to retain mandatory fixed sizes. Firstly, mandatory sizes can help some smaller-scale producers reduce costs through economies of scale and more efficient bottling line operations. Without mandatory sizes they might face demands from large retailers and distributors to regularly change pack sizes. Secondly, in some sectors prior to the introduction of mandatory sizes, consumers were faced with a proliferation of pack sizes. These differences in size were often indistinguishable to the eye resulting in widespread consumer confusion. Therefore the Commission proposes that fixed pack sizes should continue to be mandatory in a limited number of sectors in the interests of smaller-scale producers and consumer protection. This opinion agrees with this, subject to some minor changes in the range of sizes to be permitted.

Your draftsman also agrees with the Commission that there should be no changes included in this Directive for pre-packed products which are sold in aerosols, as this will be covered in the revision of Council Directive 75/324/EEC in the near future.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Commission[6]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 RECITAL 5
(5) An impact assessment, including a wide consultation of all interested stakeholders, indicated that free nominal quantities increase the freedom of producers to provide goods according to consumer tastes and enhance competition as regards quality and price on the internal market.	(5) An impact assessment, including a wide consultation of all interested stakeholders, indicated that, in many sectors, free nominal quantities increase the freedom of producers to provide goods according to consumer tastes and enhance competition as regards quality and price on the internal market.
Justification
Free nominal quantities can encourage industry innovation and increase consumer choice, but not in all sectors
Amendment 2 RECITAL 7
(7) However, in certain sectors such deregulation could result in disproportionately heavy extra costs, especially for small and medium sized enterprises. For those sectors, therefore, existing Community legislation should be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to ensure that Community nominal quantities are fixed at least in the case of those products most sold to consumers.	(7) However, in other sectors, free sizes previously gave rise to serious pack size proliferation and market complications. In those sectors such deregulation could result in disproportionately heavy extra costs, especially for small and medium sized enterprises, as well as consumer confusion. Furthermore, benefits from the use of environmentally-friendly lightweight glass could be jeopardised by deregulation. For those sectors, therefore, existing Community legislation should be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to ensure that Community nominal quantities are fixed for the most commonly traded sizes.
Justification
In some sectors, prior to the introduction of mandatory sizes, numerous different sizes were on sale, often clustered around the most commonly traded quantities, which resulted in widespread consumer confusion and extra costs to small producers in particular. An end to mandatory sizes in these sectors might recreate the conditions in which these difficulties could return causing problems for both producers and consumers.
Amendment 3 RECITAL 8
(8) Since the maintenance of mandatory nominal quantities should be regarded as a derogation, it should be limited in time, taking into account the appropriate investment cycle for the equipment in the respective sectors. For these sectors, however, existing Community legislation must be adapted in the light of experience, in particular to limit the fixed Community nominal quantities only to those most sold to consumers.	(8) While the maintenance of mandatory nominal quantities can be justified for some sectors, in the light of experience and on the basis of the need for consumer protection, Community legislation should nonetheless be subject to review, in an effort to determine whether these mandatory sizes continue to reflect the needs of consumers and producers. To ensure the stability and predictability of the market, and in order not to jeopardise capital investments in packaging equipment, such reviews should be conducted only every ten years.
Justification
The maintenance of mandatory sizes in some sectors would benefit both industry and consumers alike. It is difficult to predict future market conditions and whether an end to all mandatory sizes would be beneficial. It would be better, therefore, to conduct a review after a reasonably long length of time to assess if any adjustments to the legislation are necessary.
Amendment 4 RECITAL 9 A (new)
	(9a) In the interests of consumer protection, new measures should be introduced in order to improve the legibility of the weight and composition information which appears on product labels.
Justification
This would provide more effective protection for consumers, who would have access to all the information concerning the product in a legible form on the label and would be able to make swift comparisons between products in different-sized packs.
Amendment 5 RECITAL 10 A (new)
	(10a) In the case of products which are liquid in consistency but high in density (i.e. products which the packager may package as liquids or solids and which may therefore be measured in units of capacity or in units of weight and whose packaging may indicate either type of unit), harmonisation should be proposed in respect of the units of measure in which the content of such products is to be expressed, in order to enable consumers to compare prices of one and the same product.
Justification
There are certain products such as lacquers, varnishes, paints and ice creams which may be measured either in units of capacity or in units of weight. This prevents consumers from comparing the prices of one and the same product and may lead them to make the wrong choice. For this reason and in order to increase consumer protection, units of measure should be harmonised.
Amendment 6 ARTICLE 1, PARAGRAPH 1
This Directive lays down rules on the nominal quantities for products put up in pre-packages. It shall apply to pre-packed products and pre-packages, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 76/211/EEC.	This Directive lays down rules on the nominal quantities for products put up in pre-packages. It shall apply to pre-packed products and pre-packages, as defined in Article 2 of Directive 76/211/EEC. This Directive shall not apply to products listed in the Annex that are sold in duty-free shops for consumption outwith the European Union.
Justification
Goods on sale in outlets such as airport "tax free" shops and for export outwith the European Union are currently not subject to the EU's mandatory ranges since they are consumed outwith the Single Market. This provision should be retained so that sizes currently sold in such outlets do not become illegal.
Amendment 7 ARTICLE 3, PARAGRAPH 1
Until [20 years after the date mentioned in Article 9], Member States shall ensure that the products specified in point 3 of the Annex and put up in pre-packages in the intervals listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex are placed on the market only if they are pre-packed in the nominal quantities listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex.	Member States shall ensure that the products specified in point 3 of the Annex and put up in pre-packages in the intervals listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex are placed on the market only if they are pre-packed in the nominal quantities listed in point 1 and 2 of the Annex. The list of products in point 3 of the Annex shall be reviewed every ten years with a view to assessing whether it should be retained and/or amended.
Justification
It is difficult to predict market conditions in the future and whether an end to all mandatory sizes would be beneficial. It would be better, therefore, to conduct a review after a reasonably long length of time to assess if any adjustments to the legislation are necessary.
Amendment 8 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 1
1. For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, where two or more individual pre-packages make up a multi-pack, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to each individual pre-package.	1. For the purposes of Articles 3 and 4, where two or more individual pre-packages which are packaged in the quantities specified in the Annex and are capable of being sold separately, are sold in a multi-pack, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to each individual pre-package within the multi-pack.
Justification
A clarification. Products sold in multi-packs must either individually be in pack sizes allowed by this Directive or make in total a pack size which is allowed by this Directive.
Amendment 9 ARTICLE 5, PARAGRAPH 2
2. Where a pre-package is made up of two or more individual packages which are not intended to be sold individually, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to the pre-package.	2. Where a multi-pack contains two or more individual pre-packages which are not packaged in the quantities specified in the Annex and consequently cannot be sold individually, the nominal quantities listed in the Annex shall apply to the total contents of the multi-pack.
Justification
A clarification. Products sold in multi-packs must either individually be in pack sizes allowed by this Directive or make in total a pack size which is allowed by this Directive.
Amendment 10 ARTICLE 8 A (new)
	Article 8a
	Review
	In the tenth year following the entry into force of this Directive, the Commission shall report to the Parliament and Council on the application of this Directive and, where necessary, make recommendations for its amendment.
Justification
The Commission should conduct a review after a reasonably long length of time to assess if any adjustments to the legislation are necessary.
Amendment 11 ARTICLE 8 B (new)
	Article 8b Derogation
	Products packaged in quantities that were mandatory immediately prior to the entry into force of this Directive but do not appear in the intervals specified in the Annex, and whose date of production was not later than the date of entry into force of this Directive, may continue to be placed on the market for 18 months following the entry into force of this Directive.
Justification
Some sizes which are currently permitted will no longer be able to be sold under the terms of this Directive. It is appropriate, therefore, to have a phasing-out period.
Amendment 12 ANNEX, TABLE 1, ROW 6, COLUMN 2
On the interval 100ml – 1500ml only the following 7 sizes: Ml: 100 — 200 — 350 — 500 — 700 — 1000— 1500	On the interval 100ml – 2000ml only the following 10 sizes:   Ml: 100 — 200 — 350 — 500 — 700 — 750 – 1000— 1500 – 1750 – 2000
Justification
There has been an increased preference for larger sizes in spirit drinks. It is therefore appropriate to extend the mandatory sizes to include larger sizes to avoid the proliferation of similar bottle sizes at these levels. Producers should also be allowed to sell spirits in 750ml bottles since these are already produced for the export market and this is also the normal size for wine bottles.
Amendment 13 ANNEX, TABLE 2, ROW 2 A (new)
	brown sugar: on the interval 250 g - 1500 g, only the following 5 sizes: g:250-500-750-1000-1500

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC
References	COM(2004)0708 – C6-0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD)
Committee responsible	IMCO
Committee asked for its opinion   Date announced in plenary	ITRE 27.10.2004
Enhanced cooperation
Draftsman   Date appointed	John Purvis 27.1.2005
Discussed in committee	31.3.2005
Date amendments adopted	26.4.2005
Result of final vote	for: against: abstentions:		37 2 0
Members present for the final vote	Ivo Belet, Jan Březina, Philippe Busquin, Jerzy Buzek, Joan Calabuig Rull, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Lena Ek, Nicole Fontaine, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Rebecca Harms, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Pia Elda Locatelli, Eluned Morgan, Reino Paasilinna, Pier Antonio Panzeri, Umberto Pirilli, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Teresa Riera Madurell, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Britta Thomsen, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca
Substitutes present for the final vote	Malcolm Harbour, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Edit Herczog, Erika Mann, Lambert van Nistelrooij, John Purvis, Hannes Swoboda
Substitutes under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote

• [1]  For example, the annexes to Directive 80/232 lay down the nominal quantity ranges for the following products: FOOD PRODUCTS SOLD BY WEIGHT: including butter, margarine, emulsified or non-animal and vegetable fats, low-fat spreads. Table and cooking salt, rice, ready-to-eat cereals and cereal flakes.
  READY-TO-USE PAINTS AND VARNISHES (WITH OR WITHOUT ADDED SOLVENTS); SOLID OR POWDERED GLUES AND ADHESIVES; CLEANING PRODUCTS (including products for leather and footwear, wood and floor coverings, ovens and metals including for cars, windows and mirrors including for cars; stain removers, starches and dyes for household use, household insecticides, descalers, household deodorisers, non-pharmaceutical disinfectants; COSMETICS: BEAUTY AND TOILET PREPARATIONS – Products for skin and oral hygiene, shaving creams, all-purpose creams and lotions, hand creams and lotions, sun products, oral-hygiene products; toothpaste; hair-care products (except dyes)and bath products; lacquer, shampoos, rinsing products, strengtheners, brilliantines, hair cream, ‘bubble baths’ and other foaming products for bath and shower; alcohol-based products; aromatic waters, hair lotions, pre-shave and after-shave lotions; deodorants and personal-hygiene products; talcum powders; WASHING PRODUCTS – Solid toilet and household soaps; soft soaps; soap in flakes, chips, etc., liquid washing, cleaning and scouring products and auxiliary products and hypochlorite preparations, scouring powder, pre-wash and soaking products in powder form; LUBRICATING OILS; PRESERVES AND SEMI-PRESERVES IN TINS AND GLASS CONTAINERS: VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (FRUIT, VEGETABLES, TOMATOES, POTATOES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ASPARAGUS, SOUPS, FRUIT OR VEGETABLE JUICES AND FRUIT NECTARS) FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION; SPECIAL PRODUCTS – truffles; tomatoes: concentrates: peeled or unpeeled, fruit cocktails, fruit in syrup; MOIST PET FOOD FOR CATS AND DOGS; WASHING AND CLEANING PRODUCTS IN POWDER FORM.
• [2]  Council Directive 76/211/EEC of 20 January 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by weight or by volume of certain prepackaged products, OJ L 46, 21.2.1976, p. 1.
  Council Directive 75/106/EEC of 19 December 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids, OJ L 42, 15.2.1975, p. 1.
  Council Directive 80/232/EEC of 15 January 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the ranges of nominal quantities and nominal capacities permitted for certain prepackaged products, OJ L 51, 25.2.1980, p. 1.
• [3]  Judgment of 12 October 2000, Case C-3/99 Cidrerie Ruwet SA v. Cidre Stassen SA and HP Bulmer Ltd, ECR 2000, p. I-8749.
• [4]  ‘Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) must be construed as precluding a Member State from prohibiting the marketing of a prepackage having a nominal volume not included in the Community range provided for in Directive 75/106 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the making-up by volume of certain prepackaged liquids, amended by Directives 79/1005, 85/10, 88/316 and 89/676, which is lawfully manufactured and marketed in another Member State, unless such a prohibition is designed to meet an overriding requirement relating to consumer protection, applies without distinction to national and imported products alike, is necessary in order to meet the requirement in question and is proportionate to the objective pursued, and that objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
  In order to determine whether there is in fact a risk that consumers will be misled by excessively close nominal volumes of the same liquid, a national court must have regard to all relevant factors, taking as its reference point the average consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect.’ (Paragraph 2 of the summary of the judgment.)
• [5]  Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, OJ L 80, 18.03.1998, p. 27.
• [6]  Not yet published in OJ.

PROCEDURE

Title	Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules on nominal quantities for pre-packed products, repealing Council Directives 75/106/EEC and 80/232/EEC, and amending Council Directive 76/211/EEC
References	COM(2004)0708 – C6-0160/2004 – 2004/0248(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	25.10.2005
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	IMCO 27.10.2004
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	ITRE 27.10.2004
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Jacques Toubon 30.11.2004
				/
				/
Discussed in committee	11.7.2005	5.10.2005			22.11.2005			12.12.2005
Date adopted	12.12.2005
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:		28 0 1
Members present for the final vote	Maria Carlshamre, Charlotte Cederschiöld, Evelyne Gebhardt, Małgorzata Handzlik, Malcolm Harbour, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Anna Hedh, Edit Herczog, Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Pierre Jonckheer, Wolf Klinz, Henrik Dam Kristensen, Kurt Lechner, Lasse Lehtinen, Toine Manders, Arlene McCarthy, Manuel Medina Ortega, Zita Pleštinská, Luisa Fernanda Rudi Ubeda, Leopold Józef Rutowicz, Heide Rühle, Andreas Schwab, Eva-Britt Svensson, József Szájer, Jacques Toubon, Bernadette Vergnaud, Barbara Weiler, Phillip Whitehead
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Benoît Hamon
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled	16.12.2005
Comments (available in one language only)	...