WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/99 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Blackout of RAI TV programmes and free movement of services.
Date: 1999-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, free movement of programmes, sporting event, television

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/123

(2000/C 219 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2212/99

by GØrard Deprez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Draft free trade agreement between Turkey and the USA

Is the Commission aware of the draft free trade agreement between Turkey and the USA (S.1746) which
Senator Moynihan presented to the US Senate on 18 October? The text provides for a bilateral agreement
between the USA and Turkey seeking to reduce and eventually eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers, and
possibly to establish a free-trade agreement between the USA and Turkey.

Can the Commission say what will be the probable effects of this US Senate bill on the Customs Union
agreement between the European Union and Turkey?

If the American Congress passes this bill, what consequences will it have for Turkey(cid:146)s status as a candidate
for EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 1999)

The Commission has not received precise details of the draft referred to by the Honourable Member and
does not have a copy of the full text of Senator Moynihan(cid:146)s proposal. However, it seems this kind of
initiative is not new in the United States.

Turkey and the Community have had a customs union since 31 December 1995, which de facto prevents
Turkey from establishing a free trade zone with the United States.

By entering into a customs union, the parties adopted a common customs policy including a common
external tariff, which does not allow them any autonomy in this matter.

Given that Turkey cannot enter into a free trade area with the US, even if Congress agreed to the
proposition it would be a unilateral act which would not commit Turkey and would therefore pose no
barrier to Turkish membership of the European Union.

(2000/C 219 E/154)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/99

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Blackout of RAI TV programmes and free movement of services

It is now common practice on the part of RAI TV to (cid:145)encode(cid:146) certain popular films, sporting events and
other TV programmes for overseas viewers.

1.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Can the Commission say whether:

in the light of the principles of the single market, it does not consider it disgraceful that the RAI is
blacking out its programmes for overseas viewers, flying in the face of the principle of the free
movement of services laid down in Article 49 (ex Article 59) of the EC Treaty?

such discrimination against overseas residents and other EU citizens is not all the more reprehensible
in that being penalised on account of a border, they are not even allowed to buy a decoder should
they wish to do so?

this behaviour is not in blatant defiance of the letter and the spirit of Article 3(a) of the (cid:145)Television
without Frontiers(cid:146) directive, which stipulates that all Member States may require broadcasters to
broadcast visibly and clearly all events of particular importance? In fact it is precisely those events that
Italy has defined universal pursuant to Article 3(a) (e.g. football matches involving the national team,
European cup matches and Formula One Grands Prix) that it is blacking out for overseas viewers.

C 219 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

(d)

this conduct is not, moreover, incompatible with the RAI(cid:146)s public service duties, as the company, in
fulfilling such duties, benefits from State aid (the (cid:145)canone(cid:146), or TV licence) which is currently under the
scrutiny of the Commission itself?

Furthermore, does the Commission not consider it advisable and indeed necessary to launch specific
2.
Community initiatives to prevent radio and TV programmes, and services targeted to overseas users in
general, from being blacked out, denying consumers the possibility of gaining regular and easy access to
such services? This would hopefully put an end to this undeniable discrimination, which is seriously
undermining the completion of the single market and EU citizens(cid:146) perception of a true area without
borders.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2000)

The Commission acknowledges the relevance of the honourable Member(cid:146)s question with reference to the
operation of the internal market, and also (cid:129) in the light of the many letters of complaint that have been
received on the matter (cid:129) its importance for citizens(cid:146) perception of an area without borders.

However, the Commission does not at the moment have all the facts that are needed to provide a
satisfactory reply to the honourable Member(cid:146)s questions.

The Commission will accordingly shortly submit a request for information to the Italian authorities.

In the light of the facts that it will then have at its disposal, the Commission will be in a better position to
assess the need for any measures in this area.

(2000/C 219 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/99

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Misuse of PPP in Community legal texts

On 29 October in Brussels and on 30 October at my home in Ponta Delgada, I received the Commission(cid:146)s
reply to my question E-1567/99 (1) of July 1999. That reply confirms that PPP (purchasing power parity)
texts such as Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (2) and
indicators are used in highly important
Regulation (EC) No 1267/1999 (3), although there is no legal basis for such use.

legal

I must make the point that, contrary to what may be inferred from the Commission reply, I do not regard
the existence of a specific legal basis for PPPs as desirable. Rather, that indicator should be incorporated
into, and subordinated to, the accounts system in force in the European Union (Council Regulation (EC)
No 2223/96 (4)).

I am genuinely surprised to read that the use of that indicator (cid:145)has not created any major problems(cid:146), when
the Portuguese Statistical Office is known to have rejected the PPPs used by Eurostat on the grounds that
there is no established and accepted scientific, legal and methodological basis for the indicator.

Equally surprising is the statement that PPPs are obtained on the basis of bilateral contracts with the
Member States(cid:146) statistical offices, when it is clear that the most important empirical consideration for
ensuring that those indicators are credible is precisely that they should be calculated on the basis of
uniform criteria.

I must also point out that the most recently published document containing results relating to the
indicator in question produced results which would strike even the most casual observer as absurd.