WRITTEN QUESTION P-1416/00 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission. The Telecom Italia Mobile company.
Date: 2000-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, aid for restructuring, application of EU law, control of State aid, telecommunications industry

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/139

(2001/C 53 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1412/00

by Marietta Giannakou-Koutsikou (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: Diamantis affair

The unbaptised child of Ioannis Diamantis, a Greek citizen of Christian orthodox faith, has been held
illegally for about a year in Alexandria, Egypt, by the father of Mr Diamantis(cid:146)s Egyptian wife (Mr Diamantis
and his wife had been married in a civil ceremony). This situation has been tolerated by Egypt(cid:146)s official
authorities. The conditions set by the wife(cid:146)s father for releasing the child to his legal parents are for
Mr Diamantis to become a naturalised Egyptian and to convert to Islam. Despite the efforts made by the
parents, who are living in Greece, the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Department for Administrative
and Judicial Affairs) and Interpol (which was asked to intervene in early April) no progress has been made.
This unprecedented case constitutes a manifest violation of fundamental individual rights with a direct
effect on European citizens who are suffering the effects of discrimination based on their origin and
religious beliefs.

In view of the fact that an Association Agreement between the European Union and Egypt is about to be
signed, what steps does the Commissioner responsible intend to take to bring the illegal detention of the
child to an end as quickly as possible?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2000)

The Commission is only aware of
forward by the Honourable Member through the
considerable media coverage which it has recently had in Greece. On the basis of this information the
Commission is not in a position to comment in detail on either the legal issues involved or on whether or
not this is a purely bilateral consular matter. However, the Commission has been informed that the child
concerned has been released to the parents. If so, the matter appears to be resolved.

the case put

(2001/C 53 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1416/00

by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission

(3 May 2000)

Subject: The Telecom Italia Mobile company

The Telecom Italia company is regularly quoted on the stock exchange and subject to the rules governing
private companies.

However, the company of which it is an offshoot, SIP, was a public company enjoying a monopoly
position.

The agreement reached between certain trade unions and the telecom company involves direct interven-
tion by the Italian State, which meets certain costs. There are other companies in Italy operating in the
same market sector as Telecom Italia and which do not enjoy the same economic assistance.

Does the Commission not consider therefore that the agreement to make unemployment assistance
available to Telecom Italia will distort the market to the detriment of other operators and does it not
agree that the restructuring should not be financed with public funds to the detriment of new operators
who already have to come to terms with a market that was previously a monopoly and are now seeing
Telecom Italia given special treatment in the shape of a reorganisation that is of no benefit to the
community at large?

C 53 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any financial interventions by the state in favour of Telecom Italia related
to the financing of part of the costs of the undertaking(cid:146)s restructuring plan.

The availability of social security support measures, such as anticipated pensioning or other unemployment
schemes is not exclusively destined to Telecom and, as a matter of principle, is open to all undertakings
having significant number of excess personnel. In this sense,
it does not constitute a discriminatory
measure in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

(2001/C 53 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1423/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Enforcement of the Treaties

Does the Commission believe that individuals or legal personalities who believe that their rights under the
European Treaties have been violated should have the right to petition the Court of Justice directly?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2000)

Any natural or legal person may bring a direct action before the Court of Justice against acts taken by the
Community institutions in the manner prescribed in Article 230 (former Article 173) of the EC Treaty.
They may also bring an action before it for failure by the Community institutions to act (third paragraph
of Article 232, former Article 175) and in respect of Community(cid:146)s contractual or non-contractual liability
(Articles 235 (former 178) and 288 (former 215)).

Natural and legal persons may bring an action before the national courts, which are the ordinary courts for
matters of Community law, against measures which the national authorities are alleged to have taken in
violation of Community law or in accordance with a Community act which they consider to be contrary
to the EC Treaty. As the Court has held in a long line of cases, the existence of a remedy of a judicial
nature against any decision of a national authority refusing the benefit of a right conferred on individuals
by the EC Treaty or by an act of secondary legislation is essential to guarantee the individual actual
protection of his right (1).

It should be recalled that, under Article 234 (former 177) of the EC Treaty (2), national courts before which
questions are raised may and, in certain cases, are obliged to stay proceedings and refer to the Court of
Justice matters concerning the interpretation or validity of Community law to which the disputes brought
before them give rise. National courts are required to settle disputes in accordance with the terms of the
preliminary rulings of the Court.

The aim of all these procedures is to ensure the legal protection of the rights which individuals enjoy
under the EC Treaty.

(1) Case 222/86 Unectef v. Heylens [1987] ECR 4097; Case C-282/85P [1997] ECR I-1503.
(2) See also Cases 283/81 Cilfit [1982] ECR 3415 and 314/85 Foto v. Frost [1987] ECR 4199.