WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3202/98 by Daniela RASCHHOFER to the Commission. Lombard hotline
Date: 1998-10-27
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, EU control, bank, data collection, dissemination of information, interest

C 182/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

Given that the deadline for replies to the inquiry has now expired, and as far as I know, the general wish is that
the 12-mile zone be maintained or extended, can the Commission tell me whether:

1. The overall tenor of the replies received does indeed confirm the claims made by the Commission’s

Director-General for Fisheries at the Lisbon seminar?

2.

If so, what policy initiatives does the Commission intend to take in response, i.e. to ensure that the post
2002 Common Fisheries Policy continues to guarantee the 12 mile exclusion zone access rights for
Member States within their own waters, and indeed to guarantee these exclusive rights in zones over
12 miles in extent?

Answer given by Mrs Bonino on behalf of the Commission

(13 November 1998)

In general, the tenor of those replies to the questionnaire that the Commission presented at the Lisbon seminar
and to which the Honourable Member refers was confirmed once all the replies were scrutinised. As regards
the 6 or 12-mile limit in particular, a majority of the organisations that replied wanted it to be maintained.
Only a minority sought its extension beyond 12 miles.

The Commission is committed to listening to those working in the sector and, as a result, will not take a
position on the various issues involved until the consultation procedure has finished. It goes without saying
that, at the proper time, any legislative proposal arising from this debate will be put before the Parliament for
its opinion, in accordance with the legislation in force.

(1999/C 182/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/98

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Commission

(27 October 1998)

Subject: Lombard hotline

On 23 June 1998 the Commission carried out, without any announcement, checks on four Austrian banks
following a tip-off about interest rate agreements in the ‘Lombard club.’ To ensure the success of the audits and
to improve the flow of information a special Lombard hotline was set up. The following questions relate to the
progress in the inquiries and to press statements by the Commission member responsible.

1. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that the public announcement of the setting up of a Lombard

hotline appeared in only one Austrian daily newspaper and after a delay of several days?

2. Apart from the national print media what other means of communication can the Commission use to

disseminate and publish what it regards as necessary information?

3. Despite the meagre information provided how many calls were received by the Lombard hotline?

4. Did these calls provide any relevant information and were they of use in the investigations?

5. What exactly was the meaning of Commissioner Van Miert’s statement (in Die Presse of 21 July 1998) that

the investigations had produced ‘a good catch?’

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(19 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will appreciate that, as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position to
comment on pending proceedings.

The Commissioner was expressing his confidence that the inspections performed in June 1998 yielded
documents which might be of interest in the framework of eventual prohibition proceedings.