ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/94

(2004/C 33 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: Seychelles

What is the Commission's view of the legal actions brought by the President and Vice-President of the Seychelles against the publication REGAR?

Does the Commission believe that press freedom in the Seychelles can be protected?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Commission has on several occasions underlined that the Community's relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States, as defined in the Cotonou Agreement, are based on respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The Commission has received no official information on the case raised by the Honourable Member but will follow it and, if appropriate, will remind the Government of Seychelles of its commitments as a signatory of the Cotonou Agreement.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/162

(2004/C 65 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2492/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(25 July 2003)

Subject: Transparency in share purchases

Will the Commission state what legal or other arrangements are made in each Member State whereby companies can seek to discover the beneficial ownership of shares even if they are held by nominees, trusts or other such blinding mechanisms? Is the Commission aware of the importance of such arrangements if minority shareholder rights are to be respected by, for example, ensuring that mandatory takeover bids are launched once a controlling shareholder goes above a certain proportion of the equity? If so, what arrangements does the Commission propose whereby companies may discover the beneficial ownership of their shares even if the ownership is in another Member State? Would Member States be justified, for example, in requiring companies to place in escrow the dividends of any shareholders that failed to answer questions of beneficial ownership?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The Honourable Member raised a question related to the relationship between listed companies and its shareholders. As regards shareholders, the question not only refers to legal owners of shares, but also beneficial owners. The Commission therefore considers this to be an issue of company law.

In substance, the Commission does not possess the necessary information to provide a detailed overview about the arrangements made in each Member State whereby companies can seek to discover the beneficial ownership of shares even if they are held by nominees, trusts or others. It does in particular not have information on how national systems would also cover third country investors.

The Commission considers that the right for companies to enquire about the identity of the beneficial owner has not primarily to be seen in the context of takeovers, but as an instrument in view of the care a company wishes to take with its investors, which should be weighed against interests of data privacy as well as national property law.

As regards takeovers, the Commission wishes to point out that the proposed Directive on Takeover Bids refers to the legal ownership only (see Article 2, paragraph 1a of the proposed Directive) (1).

(1) OJ C 45 E, 25.2.2003.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/129

(2004/C 65 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2311/03

by Luciana Sbarbati (ELDR) to the Council

(8 July 2003)

Subject: Freedom and pluralism of communications media and granting the EU powers in this field under the European constitution

Knowing that:

— mass communications media, particularly television, are playing an increasingly important role in providing citizens with information and with cultural and civic education, and in creating the conditions under which consensus can emerge;

— it should be borne in mind that the effects of the role played by the media may be determined by the social, political and cultural opinions their ownership and management choose to propagate;

— in a society organised on the basis of democratic principles, pluralism and impartiality of sources of information and culture are vital factors in ensuring the proper functioning and survival of institutions and thus of the democratic system, as highlighted in the Declaration of Rome adopted on 30 November 2002 by the European Association of Former Members of Parliament of the Member States of the Council of Europe or European Union (point 5);

— the need to ensure pluralism in the media and prevent concentration in one or a few dominant centres of political and economic interest, which are capable of influencing national policy, is a matter of importance worthy of being dealt with at constitutional level, and indeed has already been enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

Will the Council take steps to ensure that, when the European constitution is drawn up, freedom and pluralism of the media are included among the Union's values (Article 2 of the preliminary draft) and that the protection of these rights is included among the Union's objectives (Article 3 of the preliminary draft), while specifying the conditions and means deemed necessary for securing and maintaining them, and conferring the relevant powers upon the Union, either exclusively or jointly with the Member States?

Reply

(17 November 2003)

The Council is not competent to reply to the question asked by the Honourable Member. It will be for the Intergovernmental Conference on the revision of the Treaties, which is due to meet in October 2003, to decide on this question if need be.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/69

(2004/C 65 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1223/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Fiumicino

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Fiumicino, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Fiumicino has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/107

(2004/C 65 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1994/03

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2003)

Subject: Television rights

There are sports organisations in the Member States which are legal entities different from sports federations, to which they are affiliated, and concern themselves with organising televised sports events.

In paragraph 27of the report on sport adopted on 7 September 2000 (A5-0208/2000) the European Parliament ‘calls for television rights to be granted in compliance with the antitrust law and to companies which take responsibility for the risks involved in preparing the sporting event; calls also for transparency in the granting of television rights’.

The selling of television rights for sports events is an economic activity and should therefore be subject to Community law on competition.

On a number of occasions the European Union has stressed that television rights should belong to legal entities who take responsibility for the business risk, with all that entails, including the risk of failure.

In view of all this, can the Commission say how it intends to ensure and ascertain that the sale and granting of television rights for the broadcasting of sports events, especially light athletics events, comply with legislation on competition, and also ascertain that television rights are owned by sports associations which have taken on the task of organising the event, rather than sports federations which have not done so, and that the rights are granted in accordance with criteria of transparency?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the selling of television rights of sports events is an economic activity, which is subject to Community competition law.

The sale of TV rights of light athletic events is therefore also in principle a matter, which could fall within the scope of Community competition law. However, regarding the issue raised, namely the problem concerning the ownership of TV rights by the sports associations which have taken the risk of organising the event, it must be noted that, according to Article 295 of the EC Treaty, Community law does not prejudice in any way the system of property ownership.

Furthermore, as regards the exercise of the TV rights of light athletics events and compliance with Community competition rules, the Commission has at present no ongoing procedures, either upon complaint or own initiative investigations, concerning specifically this sports discipline.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/224

(2004/C 33 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2138/03

by Theodoras Bouwman (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(20 June 2003)

Subject: Breach of the directive on working time (directive dealing with a number of aspects of the organisation of working time) by several Member States

Not least through the proceedings of the working group of national experts, the Commission is no doubt aware that a number of Member States have failed to comply with the judgment handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in the SIMAP case (C-303/98).

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Is it true that the above-mentioned working group of national experts is considering means of restricting or nullifying the implications of the SIMAP judgment?

2. In its answer to an earlier question (P-3515/02 (1)), the Commission made clear that the Member States must take the measures required to implement the directive and comply with the Court of Justice judgment. However, the answer also reveals that the Netherlands, where waiting periods are still regarded as rest periods and workers in some sectors work considerably more than 48 hours per week, has failed to comply with the judgment. Accordingly, the Netherlands has been in breach of EU law for almost 1000 days since 3 October 2000. Is it therefore not high time that infringement proceedings were started?

3. Would it be right to assume that the continuing failure, after almost three years, to complete the impact study or the fact that the directive is to be assessed in late 2003 will have no bearing on the decision to launch infringement proceedings?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission organised a meeting with Member States' representatives on 28 April 2003 regarding the future communication from the Commission concerning Directive 93/104/EC (2). The agenda for this meeting included an item on the follow-up to the SIMAP judgment (3). At this meeting, the Commission informed the Member States' representatives of the latest developments and held a debate with a view to ascertaining their opinions so that these could be taken into account in the communication on working time.

In addition, the Commission is currently analysing Member States' legislation in the light of the SIMAP judgment, with a view to proposing the launch of the procedure provided for in Article 226 of the EC Treaty in all cases where this is justified.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 217.

(2) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(3) Judgment of the Court of 3 October 2000, Case C-303/98, Sindicato de Médicos de Asistencia Pública (Simap) v. Conselleria de Sanidad y Consumo de la Generalidad Valenciana, European Court Reports 2000, p. I-07963.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/54

(2004/C 65 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1189/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds from the FIFG by the municipality of Massa

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Massa, urgently need to use European funds to support structural measures in the sector of fisheries, acquaculture and the processing and marketing of the relevant products,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Massa has submitted projects for the FIFG?

2. whether the municipality of Massa has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/173

(2004/C 33 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1804/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Withdrawal by the Commission of proceedings against Sinaga following an ECJ decision

The Commission, acting in breach of the principle of the separation of powers which applies in all democratic systems, took out legal proceedings against the Azores sugar refinery (Case C 2002-1098), over a matter then being examined by the European Court of Justice.

The Court, in point 4 of the conclusions of its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00, rejected the proposal of the sugar industry and the Commission for a ban on the marketing of unrefined sugar from the Azores, thus removing the basis for both the legal proceedings and the associated financial sanctions imposed on Portugal.

Is the Commission aware of the severe damage which has been caused to agriculture and industry in the Azores by its action taken independently of the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 2003)

In its judgment of 15 May 2003 in Case C-282/00 RAR ν Sinaga (not yet published) the Court of Justice, in answer to the referring court's fourth question, confirmed the principle of free shipment to mainland Portugal of white sugar produced from Azores sugarbeet.

The Commission welcomes the Court of Justice's confirmation of that principle, which is in line with the comments it presented and furthermore coincided with the view expressed by the Portuguese Government and Sinaga.

In the Commission's opinion, banning shipment of products which have been obtained in the Azores with support for local production would have been highly detrimental to that outermost region's agriculture.

The Commission has neither instituted infringement proceedings against, nor considered applying a financial correction to, the Portuguese Republic in respect of shipment of white sugar produced from Azores sugarbeet.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/69

(2004/C 65 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1222/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Use of funds under the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union by the municipality of Terni

In September 2002, the monitoring committee of the Italian Ministry for Economic Affairs issued a report on the spending of EU funds.

The report reveals the alarming slowness and inefficiency with which EU funds are allocated to projects by some regional authorities.

The grave concerns about the inadequate use of European funds by local authorities have frequently been echoed by the Commission.

Bearing in mind that some local authorities, such as the municipality of Terni, urgently need to use European funds to promote sustainable urban development,

can the Commission state:

1. whether the municipality of Terni has submitted projects for the Framework for action on sustainable urban development in the European Union?

2. whether the municipality of Terni has secured funding for these projects?
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/204

(2004/C 33 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2034/03

by Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 June 2003)

Subject: Closure of companies and mass redundancies

Schiesser-Palco recently laid off 500 workers and closed down its factory in Athens. Will the Commission say how much that company received in Community funding and at what periods of time? Did this particular company comply with the obligations laid down in the guidelines for financial aid, which stipulate that the recipients of aid must maintain their investment for at least five years? In addition, did the company maintain the existing jobs, as laid down in the new Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002 (1) of 12 December 2002 on aid for employment? Finally, were consultations between management and workers held in due time, as laid down in Article 2 of Council Directive 98/59/EC (2)?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The company Schiesser-Palco has not been financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of any Operational Programme in the period 2000-2006.

There are minimum requirements and provisions set out by Community legislation in order to provide appropriate protection to employees in the case of collective redundancies. As mentioned by the Honourable Member, under Article 2 of the Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on collective redundancies, Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that an employer, where he is contemplating collective redundancies, shall begin consultations with the workers' representatives in good time with a view to reaching an agreement.

Member States have also to ensure that employers notify the competent public authority in the Member State concerned in writing of any projected collective redundancies. This notification shall contain all relevant information including information about the consultation procedure provided for in Article 2 of the Directive.

The Commission has no specific information if the consultation procedure, which the Honourable Member referred to, took place in this particular case. Any alleged breach of the Member States' legislation implementing the provisions of Community legislation in a particular Member State is, therefore, in principle a matter to be addressed in the first instance to the competent authority of the Member State concerned.

(1) OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 3.

(2) OJ L 225, 12.8.1998, p. 16.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/157

(2004/C 65 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2458/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: High-speed rail network in southern Europe

The rail links Genoa-Marseille-Barcelona-Valencia and Lisbon-Madrid-Barcelona-Lyon-Paris are of major importance for the southern European economy. However, repeated delays are holding back the completion of the line between Madrid and Lleida/Lérida, which should have been inaugurated at the end of 2002. This stretch is an essential part of the high-speed link that will connect both Madrid and Barcelona to the French frontier. Meanwhile, the French government appears unwilling to upgrade the stretch between Nîmes and the Spanish frontier to high-speed status. What action does the Commission intend to take to ensure the development of this trans-European network in accordance with the Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Community is using the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget to help finance studies and works with a view to increasing the capacity of the existing Perpignan-Nîmes line to cope with the extra traffic which will result from the entry into service of the new Figueras-Perpignan line (scheduled for 2008-2009).

It is also contributing, again from the TEN-T budget, to the preliminary studies for the construction of an entirely new line between the Spanish border and Nîmes, which would enter into service in stages between 2010 and 2015 depending on the degree of saturation of each section of the existing line.

Accordingly, if this project has fallen behind its initial schedule whereby the entire line was to have entered into service in 2010 (and the Commission can only regret such a delay), it must be stressed that implementation of these projects remains entirely the responsibility of the Member States. In the context of the High-Level Group chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert, the Commission sought and obtained firm commitments from the French authorities that they would keep to the dates indicated above.
EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 33/153

(2004/C 33 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1683/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Subject: Clarification of Council Regulation No 2340/2002

Council Regulation No 2340/2002 (1) is not in line with the Commission proposal in the part concerning compliance with the provision of Council Regulation No 2027/95 (2) of 15 June 1995, in the wording given it by Regulation No 149/1999 (3) of 19 January 1999 and as referred to in the Commission's reply to Written Question E-1849/02 (4), regarding the limitation of the fishing effort of the UK and Spanish fleets for the species in question in the area under Portuguese jurisdiction or sovereignty in division ICES-X or CECAF 3.4.

Given that, as the Commission stated in its reply to Written Question P-0026/03 (5), the above-mentioned limitation of the fishing effort is currently fully in force, the omission has no legal consequences.

In this connection, does the Commission not consider it necessary to clarify the matter so as to ensure compliance with Community law and prevent irreparable damage being caused to the biological balance of the fish stocks in the areas concerned, in view of the full documentation that has been produced by the scientific community in publications of which the Commission is aware, as is clearly recognised in its proposal COM(2002) 739?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

On fishing effort in division X, the Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission's reply to his Written Question E-1849/02 (6). The Commission reiterates its position set out in that reply on application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2340/2002 of 16 December 2002 fixing for 2003 and 2004 the fishing opportunities for deep-sea fish stocks.

The new terms of access to the division in question will form part of the new Western Waters' arrangements now before the Council (7).

(1) OJ L 356, 31.12.2002, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 199, 24.8.1995, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 18, 23.1.1999, p. 3.

(4) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 148.

(5) OJ C 222 E, 18.9.2003, p. 138.

(6) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003.

(7) COM(2002) 739 final.