WRITTEN QUESTION No. 733/98 by Joan COLOM I NAVAL to the Commission. Implementation of the Structural Funds 1994- 1995 (SUPPLEMENTARY ANSWER)
Date: 1998-03-02
Institutions: COLOM I NAVAL, European Parliament
Subjects: Community support framework, Structural Funds, use of aid

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/25

(98/C 402/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0733/98

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: Implementation of the Structural Funds 1994-1995

Can the Commission provide information on:

› the implementation, by country and by objective, of the Community support frameworks with respect to
programming in 1997, and a summary of the period 1994-1997 by country (in line with the replies to my
questions 1877/96 and 1991/97);

› the implementation with respect to the programming of Community initiatives in the period 1994-1997?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 1998)

A report dated May 1998 on the implementation of the structural funds in 1994-1997 including two tables (cid:145)Total
implementation of the structural funds 1994 to 1997 and the Edinburgh allocations(cid:146) and (cid:145)implementation report
1997 Structural Actions(cid:146) is sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat. These tables
provide detailed information, with a breakdown by objective, Community initiative and Member State, on the
implementation of the structural funds.

When approaching the end of the present programming period, a comparison between the overall Edinburgh
allocations and the implementation gives the most accurate information on what still remains to be implemented.

(98/C 402/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0737/98

by Werner Langen (PPE) to the Commission

(2 March 1998)

Subject: EU trade mark directive

The EU(cid:146)s trade mark directive creates special legal protection for the producers of branded articles, permitting
them to keep the prices of their products artificially high. This rule seems very questionable in commercial law,
since it places the protection of branded article producers above international conventions and agreements. This
restricts the free movement of goods and acts against the interests of the consumer, who must ultimately pay the
inflated price.

In view of the above:

1.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, what are the consequences for competition and consumer policy of the restriction
of free movement of goods as a result of the transposition of the EU trade mark directive in 1995, and how
does it justify the de facto dominance of the interests of branded goods producers over those of free world
trade and the consumer?

2. What information does the Commission possess about the extent to which the EU trade mark directive
prevents the import of branded products at lower prices, and what effects has the directive had since its entry
into force on the level of sales prices for branded articles on international markets?

3. What information does the Commission possess about the practical application of the trade mark directive in
the Member States of the European Union, and can it confirm that a court in Belgium, for example, has
condemned as an abuse of the directive its application for the purpose of preventing parallel imports?