Activities of Mylène TROSZCZYNSKI related to 2015/2053(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Possible extension of geographical indication protection of the EU to non-agricultural products (A8-0259/2015 - Virginie Rozière) FR
Amendments (10)
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers thatNotes the lack of a unitary system for the protection of geographical indications relating to non-agricultural products creates a highly fragmented situation in Europe, arising from different national and local, sectoral, arising from different national rules; believes that in the context orf transversal rules, which have distorting effects, which hamper the harmonious development of the common market, as well as homogeneous protection and effective competition he single market this fragmentation may effectively encourage unfair competition and therefore harm consumers; stresses that this alone should call into question the current anarchic construction of the single market, and that con sequal terms, which prevent consumers from receiving accurate, truthful and comparable information and which are an obstacle toently the national framework remains, for the time being, the optimum framework for ensuring effective and realistic consumer protection;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes, therefore, the publication of the Green Paper (COM(2014)469) by the Commission and lLooks favourably upon the possible extension of the European Union’s geographical indications to non- agricultural products;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Is strongly convinced thatWonders how, specifically, extending protection of geographical indications to non-agricultural products could have many and varied positive effects for citizens, consumers, producers and the whole European economic and social fabric;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
Paragraph 6 – introductory part
6. Considers that this system could, in particulare advantage of this system is that it could:
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
Paragraph 6 – indent 1
- protect consumers more effectively andin certain countries where the legislation may be incomplete, provide more protection to consumers by helping them to make better informed choices about buying products, increasing transparency, furnishing more information about quality and origin and ensuring traceability, although some countries already have effective regulations in this area;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
Paragraph 6 – indent 3
- promote and facilitate access to the common market for European craft products, which are the fruit of traditional knowledge and skills, helping to conserve precious know-how which characterises entire social and local communities and which represents a significant element in the historical, cultural, economic and social heritage of European nations;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 4
Paragraph 6 – indent 4
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
Paragraph 6 – indent 5
- help to increase the overall attractiveness of an area and to preserve national and local identities, as well as facilitating the generation of useful synergies to promote local areas and their distinctiveness, with consequent benefits also from the point of view of tourism, culture and trade;
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that this system must be accompanied by the creation of a single European register, that it should be characterised by a cross-cutting approach in order to maximise its economic and social impact, and that it should significantly, as a priority, seek to enhance the existing link between products and their area of origin, in particular by means of short supply chains, in order to increase the credibility and authenticity of a product and, guarantee its origin and traceability and protect dependent jobs in local industries;