WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/00 by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission. FIBT advertising rights on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors' clothing.
Date: 2000-02-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: advertising, ownership, professional sport, sponsorship, sporting event, sports body, sports equipment

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/151

Studies published in the scientific journals Mar(cid:237)ne Mammal Science (July 1999) and Conservation Biology
(28 October 1999) indicate that the actual number of seals killed by hunting (zadel seals) in Canada and
Greenland was between 417 000 and 533 000 last year. The studies sat that if (cid:145)sustainable hunting(cid:146) means
that hunting does not result in a fall in population (i.e. the birth rate keeps pace with the number of seals
killed), the actual number of seals killed should be in the order of 93 000 and 264 000. Accordingly, the
number of seals killed as a result of hunting should be adjusted downwards.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the publications in the periodicals referred to above?

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, how do the results of these studies relate to the quota laid down by the

2.
Canadian government?

Is the Commission prepared to take action to urge the Canadian government to change its policy? If

3.
so, what action?

4.
Can the Commission provide any information on compliance with the seals directive (83/129/
EEC) (1), as amended in 1985 and 1989? Can the Commission guarantee that Member States are actually
complying with this directive?

(1) OJ L 91, 9.4.1983, p. 30.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2000)

The Commission is aware of the scientific publications mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The quotas for harp and hooded seal hunting in Canada have remained unchanged since 1996 and neither
species is considered endangered, according to the International Union for conservation of nature and
natural resources (IUCN) red list of threatened animals. The Commission takes it that the Canadian
authorities are aware of problems concerning the relation between quotas and effective harvest numbers
and that for that reason an extensive harp seal population survey has been conducted by the Canadian
Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans in 1999 with final results expected in spring 2000. Consequently the
Commission sees no need to intervene in this matter.

The Commission has no reason to assume that Council Directive 83/129/EEC of 28 March 1983
concerning the importation into Member States of skins of certain seal pups and products derived
therefrom, which only concerns furs of whitecoat pups of harp seals and of blueback pups of hooded
seals, is not correctly implemented in the Member States. Some years ago miscoding of lambskins led to
the impression that whitehead skins had been imported into the Community. Commercial harvesting of
whitecoats and bluebacks is against the law in Canada. As a result of this measure it appears that trade in
these specific kinds of seal skins has petered out.

(2000/C 330 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0397/00

by Doris Pack (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 February 2000)

Subject: FIBT advertising rights on bobsleighs, helmets and competitors(cid:146) clothing

In its International Rules on World Cup and European and world championship competitions, the Milan-
based FIBT (International Bobsleighing and Tobogganing Federation) claims ownership of items that belong
to competitors and clubs and/or national associations.

C 330 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

At the highest levels, bobsleighing is generally a professional sport. As a rule, the bobsleighs and other
equipment used are the property of bobsleigh team members or of the clubs to which they belong or of
the national associations sponsoring them.

In Section 1.13.3.2 of its International Rules, the FIBT declares, in breach of the rights of ownership and
personal rights of competing team members, clubs and national associations, that 50 cm2 on each side of a
bobsleigh and the lower third of its cowling, including the surfaces of the front lateral bumpers, is FIBT
property.

The FIBT makes it difficult for top bobsleigh teams, clubs and national associations to find sponsors and so
restricts their freedom to develop economic activity.

Will the Commission therefore state whether the FIBT rules on advertising space on bobsleighs, helmets
and competitors(cid:146) clothing run counter to Community case-law as it is currently evolving with regard to
professional sport?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2000)

On the basis of the information provided in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, the Commission finds it
difficult to give a definitive answer. Full knowledge of the economic and legal facts and of the specific
features of the sport, together with a definition of the market concerned, are needed in order to assess
whether a federation(cid:146)s behaviour is restrictive within the meaning of the competition rules.

In any case, the right to allocate advertising space is a matter for national law. Should the various national
laws grant the International Bobsleighing and Tobagganing Federation (FIBT) the right to decide on the use
it would be necessary to consider whether the behaviour referred to by the
of advertising space,
Honourable Member is the result of an agreement prohibited under Article 81 (former Article 85) of the
EC Treaty or could constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 82 (former
Article 86) of the EC Treaty. The Commission does not have the information to carry out an analysis
which would enable it to determine whether the behaviour referred to by the Honourable Member affects
trade between Member States or whether the FIBT, on the assumption that it acts as an undertaking, holds
a dominant position on a substantial part of the common market.

(2000/C 330 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0401/00

by Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Impartiality of EU food monitoring

(15 February 2000)

Between 11 and 21 October 1998, European Union veterinary inspectors made an inspection visit to the
Kola peninsula in Russia with the aim of ascertaining whether it would be possible to grant permission for
reindeer meat and game to be imported into the EU from that source.

According to the inspection report (XXIV/1472/98), a representative of an enterprise with an interest in
imports of reindeer meat from the Kola peninsula took part in the Commission(cid:146)s inspection mission. The
report states that the enterprise helped to organise the journey and arranged interpreting services for
meetings.

Is it standard practice for representatives of commercial enterprises to participate in EU inspection
missions in third countries? Is it likely to boost consumer confidence in the impartiality of the EU(cid:146)s food
monitoring if parties with commercial interests participate in inspection missions?