ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0541/02

by Reino Paasilinna (PSE) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Dominant position in the Italian broadcast media

Through his companies Silvio Berlusconi owns three out of the six Italian national television channels. Their audience share has climbed to about half. As prime minister he also has power over the three channels operated by the country's public service broadcasting corporation (RAI). According to press reports he intends to bring their operations into line with the output of his own channels. He will thus be in a position to influence an estimated 90 % of his country's national television broadcasting.

In addition, according to various information Berlusconi owns 38 % of Italy's magazines and 30 % of its publishing business and also has interests in the film, video, and Internet industries.

What does the Commission propose to do about the manifestly dominant position emerging in the Italian broadcast media? Does the current situation conform to Union competition regulations?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

A dominant position by an undertaking may be relevant in terms of Community competition law under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and/or under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89(1) hereafter the Merger Regulation.

Article 82 of the Treaty prohibits the abuse of a dominant position by an undertaking, not the existence of a dominant position as such. Such abuse may, for example, consist in directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; or making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

Article 2(3) of the Merger Regulation empowers the Commission to declare as incompatible with the common market a concentration which creates or strengthens a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the common market or in a substantial part of it.

In the context of the question raised by the Honourable Member, it should be recalled that Article 21(3) of the Merger Regulation expressly allows for measures by the Member States in order to protect plurality of the media and that other rules do not contain any specific provisions on media ownership restrictions.

At this stage of information, none of the conditions set out would seem to apply to the situation raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 of 30 June 1997 (OJ L 40, 13.2.1998).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1696/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 June 2002)

Subject: The Oporto inner ring road

The Committee for the Oporto inner ring road recently sent the Directorate-General for the Environment a report on the problems suffered by people living near the road, caused by failure to resurface the road or erect noise barriers.

Can the Commission say what its position is on this report?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2002)

The Commission confirms that it has been approached by a Residents Committee from the city of Oporto on the subject of noise caused by traffic on the Oporto inner ring road.

The provisions of Community law on environmental noise are not yet applicable to the situation in question. In May 2002 the Parliament and the Council adopted a Directive on the assessment and management of environmental noise(1). This entrusts the competent authorities in the Member States with the task of making noise maps, using common indicators, for Europe's largest towns and cities and major roads, railways and airports, informing the public about noise exposure and its effects, and implementing action plans to reduce noise exposure where necessary and maintain environmental noise quality where it is good. The Directive entered into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities, and the Member States have two years from that date to transpose it into national law.

The project concerned would appear to come under Annex II of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(2), as the information received by the Commission shows that it does not meet the criteria for definition as an express road. Under Article 4(2) of the said Directive it is for the national authorities to decide whether such projects should be made subject to an environmental impact assessment. However, Article 2 of the Directive stipulates that projects likely to have significant effects on the environment must be made subject to such an assessment.

This being the case, the Commission would inform the Honourable Member that it has asked the Portuguese authorities for information on the situation, in particular the classification of the road in question, the possible need for an environmental impact assessment and the need to take measures to minimise the effects.

The Commission will not fail to keep the Honourable Member informed of the outcome of its contacts with the Portuguese authorities.

(1) Directive 2002/49/EC, 25.6.2002.

(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3.3.1997, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2123/02

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: CFP reform and potential legal challenge

The principle of relative stability was laid down in Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83(1) of 25 January 1983, the substance of which is restated in Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92(2) of 20 December 1992, and was further recognised by virtue of the Spanish and Portuguese Acts of Accession. The principle has since been elaborated and reinforced by the Court of Justice (for example but not limited to, Joined Cases C-418/00 and C-419/00, Case C-120/99, Joined Cases C-61/96, C-132/97, C-45/98, C-27/99, C-81/00 and C-22/01, Case T-196/99 and Case C-4/96).

The acquis communautaire has therefore firmly entrenched the principle of relative stability as fundamental to the common fisheries policy. How can the Commission therefore justify any weakening of a fundamental principle, as outlined in its recently published reform package, without opening up the whole reform to legal challenge?

(1) OJ L 24, 27.1.1983, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2123/02 and E-2124/02given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly stated, the principle of relative stability has been referred to in Community legislation. However, that legislation does not contain the elements necessary to make fully transparent how the principle of relative stability works in practice. The Commission proposes that these elements are laid down in a Regulation by Council, in consultation with Parliament. The Commission is convinced that legal security will be increased in this manner.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-2537/02

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 September 2002)

Subject: Sarbanes-Oxley Act

What response is the European Commission considering to the US authorities' decision to apply the full financial reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act on European companies listed in the US stock exchange? Since this represents an unjustified extraterritorial extension of US domestic regulations which will prove costly to European companies, what retaliation is being considered by the EU? In addition what action is being considered by the European Commission in light of the full force of the regulatory authority of the Public Accounting Oversight Board established by Sarbanes-Oxley being applied to European accounting firms who audit a foreign subsidiary of a listed US company?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2002)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission is concerned about the far-reaching effects that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act might have on Community companies which are listed in the United States, on the foreign subsidiaries of United States companies and on Community auditors. The Commission understands, however, that, through the implementing rules to be adopted by the United States' Securities and Exchange Commission, there could be room to grant certain exemptions for foreign accounting firms. Concerning foreign issuers, the United States' Securities and Exchange Commission has only limited exemptive authority; however there might be room for applying the implementing measures in a manner compatible with foreign issuers' home country laws and practices.

In the framework of existing arrangements based on co-operation between regulators, the Commission will pursue its dialogue with the United States' Securities and Exchange Commission at political and at technical level with a view to ensuring as little duplication as possible in terms of corporate governance and accounting requirements between the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Community law. It is not in the interest of anyone that the Commission or the Securities and Exchange Commission proposes measures unilaterally regulating foreign companies and audit firms unnecessarily.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 March 2002)

Subject: Year of the Mountain the Dolomites as a world heritage site

The UN General Assembly has declared 2002 the International Year of the Mountain. Would this not be a good year to have the Alps recognised as a world heritage site?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(29 April 2002)

Article 151 of the EC Treaty requires the Community to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of culture, including the conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage, and, if necessary, to support and supplement Member States' actions in specific areas. This objective is being pursued through the Culture 2000 framework programme to promote cultural cooperation in Europe.

Other than under the existing programmes and initiatives, the Community does not have the power to take measures to safeguard the cultural heritage of the Member States or to establish an order of classification at Community level. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, protection schemes are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.

As mentioned in the Commission's reply to written question E-1560/01(1), the Community, unlike the Member States, is not party to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

The Community does not have the authority to classify the Alps with reference to this Convention. Any request for recognition as a world heritage site must come from a country that is party to the Convention.

In any event, the Commission would like to draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that classification as a heritage site is not necessarily synonymous with ensuring protection. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, protection schemes are the exclusive responsibility of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 364 E, 20.12.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1002/02

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Endorsement of indicators relating to violence against women

What are the Commission's specific plans and initiatives as regards to the drawing up of a list of the main indicators relating to violence against women? How is it intending to ensure that the necessary tasks of coordination, endorsement and standardisation are carried out as part of the process of gathering and disseminating data for the purpose of producing statistics and indicators which will provide a proper picture of the situation as regards violence against women in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

Up until now there has not been a defined demand to collect statistics in order to calculate indicators relating to violence against women and therefore the Commission does not have the information requested. However the Danish Presidency plans to develop indicators on violence, based on the activities of the Spanish Presidency concerning violence against women and Eurostat is prepared to co-operate in this area. In fact Eurostat plans to start the reflections on the development of statistics in the area of victimisation, personal security and crime in its work programme of 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1059/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against family-run farms in Spain's allocation of aid received from the EAGGF Guarantee Section: the case of Galicia

Last year, EUR 6,2 billion of aid for Spanish agriculture was allocated from the EAGGF Guarantee Section. In practice that aid, as in all previous years, was distributed in a highly discriminatory fashion since it mainly benefited major producers and even the owners of large estates who live off their capital, have huge fortunes and belong to the Spanish nobility whereas farming families living in rural areas are marginalised. Since the EAGGF Guarantee Section aid mainly goes to farms in arid areas which grow oilseed plants, cereals, flax, cotton, tobacco, and so on, farmers in more humid areas who rear livestock for meat or milk are marginalised twice over. This is the case with farmers in Galicia. Since Galicia is remarkably suited to agriculture and to multifunctional rural development, it receives only 1 % of the EUR 6,2 billion which Spain receives from the EAGGF Guarantee Section, whereas other Spanish regions (essentially their large landholders) receive up to 30 % of the total.

What action is to be taken in order to ensure that the EAGGF Guarantee Section serves regional development and social cohesion, in accordance with EU principles? What immediate compensation is Galicia to receive?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

1. The Council attaches great importance to the development of the rural environment. This issue underlies the policy of diversification and development of rural areas that was confirmed by Agenda 2000. The CAP approach is based on the idea that agriculture must be multifunctional and spread throughout Europe and must enable a key contribution to be made to the vitality of rural life.

2. In order to implement rural development, which constitutes the second pillar of the CAP, the Council has decided that, apart from the traditional agricultural market measures, the EAGGF Guarantee Section should finance rural development programmes, four of which (early retirement, compensatory allowances, afforestation and agri-environment) cover the entire Union. However, six other measures (investment in agricultural holdings, young farmers, training, forestry, processing and marketing, adaptation and diversification of rural areas) which are also financed by the EAGGF Guarantee Section are, in the case of the regions covered by Objective 1 (including Galicia), the responsibility of the EAGGF Guidance Section. The other Structural Funds also contribute.

3. Current regulations on rural development provide for the amalgamation of all measures in this area, with the Member State responsible for choosing to implement those which will be most effective for the future development of rural areas.

4. The Council informs the Honourable Member that on 15 July 2002 it conducted a preliminary debate on the mid-term review of the CAP following the Commission's presentation of its communication.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Commission gifts

A recent news article reported that Commissioners will not disclose a full list of gifts along with the gifts' donors or protocol and diplomatic reasons, and so as to avoid any potential embarrassment for foreign officials.

Is this, indeed, the Commission policy?

What are the protocol and diplomatic reasons for not declaring gifts' donors?

Would the Commission care to expand on its reasons for not wanting to embarrass foreign officials giving personal gifts to Commissioners or Commission staff?

Would it not be Commission policy, in light of its commendable commitment to openness and transparency, to publish a list of gifts and donors on the Commission website?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Code of Conduct for Commissioners states that they shall not accept gifts of a value greater than EUR 150. When, in accordance with standard diplomatic usage, they do receive gifts whose value exceeds that amount, they hand them over to the Commission's Protocol Service.

On the occasion of exploratory talks preceding a visit of a high level personality to the Commission, Protocol discourages any presentation of gifts. Nevertheless, in accordance with their traditions, some visitors insist on presenting a gift in memory of their visit.

To publish a list of gifts containing the names of the donors would cause embarrassment to those visitors who, acting on advice, did not present any gift.

These gifts are mostly objects which represent local arts or crafts or which are personalised, for example engraved with the name of the donor, the recipient or the occasion.

As mentioned above, gifts of a value greater than EUR 150 are handed over to the Protocol Service. It is often a difficult and highly subjective task to determine whether a very typical gift is of a value (market or usage value?) greater than EUR 150.

Since only the latter must be notified to the Protocol Service, some donors might take offence at not seeing their gift on the list.

It can sometimes be very difficult to describe a particular gift, to define its usage or to find a reference to the artist that produced it (in the case of engravings or paintings).

A significant number of gifts are put into storage, some adorn the corridors, offices and rooms of the Commission, while other, non-personalised gifts are given to charities.

Nevertheless, the Commission wants to be better able, within the constraints of its protocol and diplomatic obligations, to respond to requests for information submitted by interested persons. Consequently, it intends to take measures to ensure that, in future, the kind of information to which the Honourable Member refers is more easily accessible.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0690/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 March 2002)

Subject: Wood-fired pyrolysis

Although the EU must continue to support and develop renewable sources of energy generation, this must not be done to the overall detriment of the environment. EU and UK funding is currently being used to research further the technologies used to harness biomass energy resources.

What steps has the Commission taken, in line with the precautionary principle, to assess the risks to the local environment created by plants generating liquid biofuels through pyrolysis processes generally, and wood fired pyrolysis with diesel as a supplementary fuel in particular? What is the nature of such risks and how serious are they in respect of health and safety, both for those working with them and for the general public, and for the environment generally?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

Flash pyrolysis technologies producing bio-oil from biomass feedstocks are indeed under development by various companies and several projects have been supported by Community programmes.

The utilisation of bio-oil, a renewable liquid fuel, for energy production results in significant reduction to environmental emissions compared to all fossil fuels and especially coals.

Based on subsidiarity, it is the obligation of any demonstration plant, irrespectively of the type of the biomass conversion technology, to meet all local environmental requirements and emission limits. Furthermore, the engine manufacturers are aware that unless they will develop engines that can combust efficiently and with minimum emissions the bio-oil, their product will never penetrate the market.

The effects on health and safety are also seriously examined both on a European and international level. The technology developers have recognised that these aspects must be carefully addressed and several studies are under implementation. These issues are the subjects (among others) of a thematic network supported by the Fifth Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development (FP5) and a new proposal has been shortlisted for support during the evaluation of proposals submitted in the 14 December 2001 call for FP5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1620/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 June 2002)

Subject: Chancellor Gordon Brown's Golden Rule

Does the Commission believe that Chancellor Gordon Brown's so-called golden rule, which stipulates that investment expenditure by government (however welcome it might be) should not be counted as expenditure for the purposes of the Growth and Stability Pact, is an example of fiscal rectitude consistent with the terms of the Pact or something closer to voodoo economics which will damage the U.K.'s chances of achieving a balanced budget over the economic cycle?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

The golden rule is one of the British government's two fiscal rules introduced to secure sound public finances. The British government has also subscribed to the terms of the Stability and Growth Pact. This requires that the government finances show a close to balance or surplus position in the medium term. In practice, the British government finances have been close to balance or in surplus in recent years, thus upholding the requirements of the Pact, while, at the same time, they have achieved the British government's own fiscal rules. There would, therefore, not appear to have been an inconsistency up to now between the achievement of the terms of the Pact and the government's fiscal rules. It should be noted that the achievement of the two British fiscal rules is a matter for the British government. It is compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact that the Commission addresses in its surveillance and assessment of the British public finances.