WRITTEN QUESTION P-2424/99 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Recognition of sport in the Treaty.
Date: 1999-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: principle of subsidiarity, social role, sport

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/159

However, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, from which it can be deduced
that there could be problems for the location of this plant, the Commission considers that Council
Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (4), can be of application in this case.

The Commission will take the appropriate steps in order to ensure the observance of Community law and
in particular of the Directive mentioned.

(1) OJ L 163, 14.6.1989.
(2) OJ L 203, 15.7.1989.
(3) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(4) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2000/C 219 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2424/99

by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission

(13 December 1999)

Subject: Recognition of sport in the Treaty

The 1992 European Sports Charter recognised the social function of sport, while the declaration on sport
attached to the Amsterdam Treaty emphasises (cid:145)the social significance of sport, in particular its role in
forging identity and bringing people together(cid:146). Because of its special characteristics, sport has a unique and
specific value and cannot be treated in the same way as other economic activities, as it is under current
legislation.

The Bosman ruling of 15 December 1995 by the European Court of Justice has made it possible for
professional athletes to be transferred freely between the Member States with no restrictions on number, a
the
situation which threatens to undermine national
opportunities for the development of young athletes. In addition, by virtue of the subsidiarity principle,
the autonomy of the sports bodies and national structures required to regulate the sector must be
respected.

identification with sports teams and restrict

The European Council in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998 also recognised the social role of sport
and asked the Commission to draw up a report for the European Council in Helsinki in preparation for the
Intergovernmental Conference.

In the light of the above:

1. Has the Commission set up working parties to draw up the report in question?

2.

3.

Is the Commission making progress with the report and will it complete its work in time for the
Helsinki summit?

In the light of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, does it think it would be appropriate to
table a formal amendment to the Treaty, adding an article to Title XII (ex Title IX), as has already been
done in the cultural sector, recognising the specific nature and special requirements of sport and
stressing the need for the subsidiarity principle to govern Community action in this field?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2000)

for the Helsinki Council,

In preparing the report on sport

1.
the Commission adhered to the
Amsterdam declaration(cid:146)s request that sports bodies should be consulted where important issues related to
sport are concerned. To this end, the Commission published a discussion paper which received many
responses and comments from the sports bodies. This document was used as a basis for the European
Sports Conference, which was held in Olympia in May 1999. The Conference offered a special opportunity
for all those involved in the world of sport (cid:129) federations, public authorities, other Community institutions,
industry, the media (cid:129) to express their views on sport. Finally, the Commission also took into account the
report by the Committee of the Regions on sport.

C 219 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

At its meeting of 1 December 1999, the Commission adopted the report (1) in order to allow the

2.
European Council in Helsinki to deal with this issue.

The Commission has already adopted its contribution (2) for the purposes of the intergovernmental

3.
conference. It was decided not to include an article on sport.

(1) COM(1999) 644 final.
(2) COM(1999) 592 final.

(2000/C 219 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2425/99

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Protection of European companies in Kosovo

In reply to my oral question H-0608/99 (1) of 16 November 1999 to the Commission concerning
protection of the interests of European Union companies in Kosovo, Commissioner Patten indicated that
he had no information concerning pressure being brought to bear or threats being made against European
companies in Kosovo. To fill the gaps in his information concerning the subject, I personally gave him a
copy of correspondence between the (cid:145)Mytilinaios(cid:146) company and Mr Kouchner and Mr Dixon. I also asked
him to investigate the current situation regarding the functioning of telecommunications in Kosovo in
order to obtain a full picture.

Effective communications between the European Parliament and the Commission will help to protect the
interests of the EU wherever they may be under threat. The sovereign rights of European companies are
currently what is at stake in Kosovo. The Greek Telecommunications Organisation (OTE) and the Italian
STET International, which have respectively a 20 % and 29 % holding in Srbija Telekom, are suffering
losses as a result of non-payment of fees to Srbija Telekom for use of telecommunications services in
Kosovo, while, at the same time, the UCK and its covert supporters are insisting on the restoration by the
two companies of the damaged network and its subsequent nationalisation by Albania, in violation of
international agreements. However the most serious breach of the law occurred recently when a (cid:145)special
committee(cid:146) made up of UN representatives and Kosovar Albanians quite illegally transferred mobile
telephony rights to the French company Alcatel. These rights are the exclusive property of the OTE and
STET International,
in accordance with international agreements currently in force, which state that
Kosovo is part of the key area in which these two companies are entitled to operate and export their
profits.

What action will the Council take to protect the legitimate rights of European companies in Kosovo which
at this moment are under threat by illegal networks in which even UN officials are starting to be involved,
contrary to their instructions regarding observance of the law in this area?

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999).

Reply

(14 February 2000)

So far, the Council has not been approached by any of the firms mentioned in the Honorable Member(cid:146)s
question. The Council assumes that these firms have taken up the issues raised by the Honorable Member
directly with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Country in which their headquarters is established
and/or with the UN Secretary General Special Representative for Kosovo, Mr Bernard Kouchner.

The Council remains firmly attached to establishing a viable and functioning market economy in Kosovo
and the EU has taken on a special responsibility in this regard, since UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan,
entrusted the management of UNMIK(cid:146)s pillar IV (responsible for the area of reconstruction and economic
development) to the European Union.