By seeking to have the name 'prosek' protected, Croatia wants to mislead consumers and benefit from the popularity of the Italian prosecco, Italian members of the European Parliament said on Thursday, while Croatian MEPs pointed to obvious differences between the two wines and the history of prosek. Pročitaj više

Croatia’s request for the EU to protect the traditional name of the dessert wine of its coastal region was met with resolute opposition from Italy, but the European Commission in September decided to take into consideration the possible protection of the traditional name prosek.

MEPs discussed the dispute over prosek at a plenary session on Thursday with Commissioner Helena Dalli, following a question put to the EC by Italian MEP Mara Bizzotto.

Bizzotto asked the EC to state how it intends to strengthen the EU’s system of protected designations of origin, suggesting that the Croatian prosek is a fraud causing damage to prosecco and Italian producers.

The Italian MEP, a member of the right-wing Identity and Democracy group, said the EC’s decision to accept Croatia’s request for the protection of the traditional term prosek was scandalous.

Commissioner Dalli said that the EC had decided to take Croatia’s request into consideration because it determined, after carefully examining it, that the request met all the relevant legal conditions.

Dalli said that the EC had received 12 objections to the request, of which the acceptable ones would be forwarded to Croatia to state its position, and that the EC would then make a final decision.

Croatian MEPs pointed during the debate to the evident differences between the two wines, saying that the centuries-long history of prosek proved it was not an attempt to benefit from the Italian name prosecco.

Tonino Picula, a Croatian MEP from the ranks of Socialists and Democrats, said that one should “dismiss incomplete and incorrect interpretations, unfounded obstruction as well as accusations of abuse, imitation, or allusion.”

The Croatian side insisted that, in the case of the two wines, there is a linguistic similarity with no intention of unfair competition, which allows the official protection of the term prosek at the EU level, which Picula mentioned in his address.

“Prosek is not a new product that was labelled ‘Prosek’ just to trigger an association about ‘Prosecco’. The name similarity is due to the rich historical and linguistic heritage shared by our two countries. That heritage should be celebrated, not disparaged and abused,” said Picula.

“Croatia and its producers cannot and must not be discriminated against due to cases of linguistic similarities,” he said.

MEP Valter Flego of the Istrian Democratic Party (IDS), a member of the Liberals group, reiterated that the wines in question are entirely different, therefore “there is no prosecco-prosek case.”

“Therefore there can also be no war” between Croatia and Italy over those wines, Flego said in response to Bizzotto’s remarks.

Ladislav Ilcic of the European Conservatives and Reformists group recalled that the EU’s system of product protection protected old products from new ones, and that the Dalmatian prosek was mentioned in literature as early as 18th century.

Italian claims that prosek is a new product are entirely incorrect, he said.

MEP Tomislav Sokol (HDZ/EPP) said that Italy had obstructed the protection of the name prosek from the beginning of the process, noting that its protest was pointless because “these are two products of two different colours, aromas, and prices, with different traditions and consumption habits.”