WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/00 by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission. Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival.
Date: 2000-03-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, Netherlands, administration of the Institutions, cultural event, film production

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/43

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

Through its Decision of 7 May 1998, the Commission decided to grant financial support to the (cid:145)Plan de
Gesti(cid:243)n de Residuos S(cid:243)lidos Urbanos de Galicia(cid:146) (1) (plan for the management of municipal waste for the
Galicia Region). This decision was taken after a thorough evaluation of the proposal and the assessment
that it complied with the requirements of all the relevant Community policies, including environmental
policy. The environmental impact assessment of the project shows that it represents an environmental
improvement for the region of Galicia.

Regarding the hierarchy established for the management of wastes, the assessment states that all those
wastes that cannot be reused or recycled after separate collection at the point of origin would be further
selected for recycling in the central facility. Moreover, the non-reusable and non-recyclable portion will be
subject to energy recovery through its transformation into a refuse derived fuel to be used for the
production of electricity in the generation plant built in the (cid:145)Complexo Medioambiental de Cerceda(cid:146).
Furthermore, most of the wastes produced in the region will be transported by railroad from the transfer
stations to the central facility.

The development of the project has been carried out in full respect of the terms of the decision of the
Commission.

(1) Cohesion Fund Project No 97.11.61.047.

(2001/C 46 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/00

by Maria Sanders-ten Holte (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Failure by DG XIII to pay a subsidy promised to the Netherlands Film Festival

In 1995 the Commission (DG XIII) decided to grant the Netherlands Film Festival a subsidy of ECU 12 000
to organise the Scientific Technical Festival. After a series of letters, phone calls and requests for payment,
the sum in question was eventually received in early 1997. In 1996 another subsidy, this time of twice
ECU 12 000, was promised by an official of DG XIII. The requisite papers were completed and returned by
the recipient. However, despite a number of letters, petitions and a complaint to the European Ombuds-
man, no money has yet been forthcoming.

In reply to a previous question by a Member of the European Parliament (E-2730/98 (1)) on this subject,
the Commission wrote that it would await the close examination by the European Ombudsman. The
Ombudsman(cid:146)s reply has been known for a long time now: he delivered a moral victory to the Netherlands
Film Festival, while addressing a (cid:145)critical remark(cid:146) to DG XIII and referring to (cid:145)bad governance(cid:146). A further
question to the Commission by the same Member, of 20 April 1999, has never received a reply.

Is the Commission aware of the facts concerning the granting of subsidies by an official of DG XIII

1.
and excuses about mail not being received and the service moving premises?

2.

Has the official in question promised more than he can deliver?

Does the Commission feel morally obliged to pay the Netherlands Film Festival the sum promised,

3.
since the Ombudsman has upheld the complaint by the Netherlands Film Festival? If not, why not?

(1) OJ C 135, 14.5.1999, p. 106.

C 46 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

1.
The Commission is aware of the situation which resulted in the non-granting of a second subsidy to
the Netherlands Film Festival. The facts are set out in detail in the decision delivered on 20 October 1998
by the European Ombudsman, which closed a detailed enquiry undertaken in response to a complaint
lodged on 23 January 1997.

The Commission has accepted the decision, including the critical remarks contained in the Ombuds-

2.
man(cid:146)s conclusion, which describes the procedure applied in this instance as (cid:145)bad governance(cid:146).

The Commission grants subsidies in accordance with precise legal rules relating inter alia to

3.
substance, form and deadlines. It cannot but comply with those rules.

(2001/C 46 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0792/00

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Data protection

A hearing was recently held in the European Parliament on data protection, at which (among other topics)
the communications interception project Echelon was discussed. It seems that this system is used world-
wide by the USA to intercept telephone, fax, mobile phone and e-mail communications; software may also
apparently have inbuilt keys which may be used as a secret back door through which a citizen may be
followed into his computer and his activities monitored.

The Directive on data protection in the telecommunications sector (European Parliament and Council
Directive 97/66/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (1)) imposes obligations on service and network providers but
appears not to cover software.

1.

Has the Commission received any complaints about this matter?

2.
Is the Commission prepared to amend Directive 97/66/EC to plug the software loophole in the
interest of providing actual protection of citizens against the unwanted monitoring and interception of
computer contents and communications flows?

3.
Does the Commission consider that with increasingly comprehensive interception by the authorities
and with wide-ranging obligations for service providers to store their customers(cid:146) data the Member States
have struck a proper balance between the citizen(cid:146)s right to privacy and the interests of national security
and crime prevention?

Is the Commission,

in the context of its duty to ensure the proper transposition of European
4.
directives into national
law, examining the proportionality of measures taken by the Member States
pursuant to the exemptions permitted by the European data protection directives? What are its findings in
this connection?

(1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

1.

No.

Directive 95/46/EC (1) on the processing of personal data covers all processing of personal data
2.
irrespective of the hardware or software used. The working party of data protection commissioners
established under Article 29 of this Directive has addressed the problem of invisible and automatic
processing of personal data on the Internet performed by software and hardware. In its recommendation