WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Government aid for audiovisual productions.
Date: 2000-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, aid system, audiovisual production, budget, competition law, cultural policy

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/27

The political dialogue with Turkey was interrupted following the Luxembourg European Council
3.
in December 1997 and Turkey was during a period not willing to discuss (cid:145)political issues(cid:146), such as human
rights, with the European Union.

its reforms. This will

In its conclusions of December 1999, the Helsinki European Council welcomed (cid:145)recent positive
4.
developments in Turkey as noted in the Commission(cid:146)s progress report, as well as its intention to continue
its reforms towards complying with the Copenhagen criteria. Turkey is a candidate State destined to join
the Union on the basis of the same criteria as applied to the other candidate States. Building on the
existing European strategy, Turkey, like other candidate States, will benefit from a pre-accession strategy to
include enhanced political dialogue, with emphasis on
stimulate and support
progressing towards fulfilling the political criteria for accession with particular reference to the issue of
human rights, as well as on the issues referred to in paragraphs 4 and 9(a)(cid:146). The Council draws the
attention of the Honourable Member to point 4 where (cid:145)The European Council reaffirms the inclusive
nature of the accession process, which now comprises 13 candidate States within a single framework. The
candidate States are participating in the accession process on an equal footing. They must share the values
and objectives of the European Union as set out in the Treaties. In this respect the European Council
stresses the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes in accordance with the United Nations Charter and
urges candidate States to make every effort to resolve any outstanding border disputes and other related
issues. Failing this they should within a reasonable time bring the dispute to the International Court of
Justice. The European Council will review the situation relating to any outstanding disputes, in particular
concerning the repercussions on the accession process and in order to promote their settlement through
the International Court of Justice, at the latest by the end of 2004. Moreover, the European Council recalls
that compliance with the political criteria laid down at the Copenhagen European Council is a prerequisite
for the opening of accession negotiations and that compliance with all the Copenhagen criteria is the basis
for accession to the Union.(cid:146)

In point 9(a) the European Council
(cid:145)welcomes the launch of the talks aiming at a comprehensive
settlement of the Cyprus problem on 3 December in New York and expresses its strong support for the
UN Secretary-General(cid:146)s efforts to bring the process to a successful conclusion.(cid:146) An Association Council
meeting was held on 11 April 2000 in Luxembourg, at which human rights were discussed against the
background of the Copenhagen political criteria, which all candidate States must comply with before
accession negotiations may be initiated. The EU noted that Turkey had embarked on a process of reform in
this area. The EU looked forward to further progress and would continue to closely monitor developments
in Turkey and,
if necessary, raise individual cases with Turkish authorities. The EU also mentioned
specifically the EU position on capital punishment, encouraging Turkey to become party to Protocol No 6
to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

5.
These questions were raised at a working lunch between the political directors of the fifteen Member
States and their Turkish counterpart on 30 March 2000. Since the re-arrest of Mr Birdal constituted a
serious setback for freedom of expression in Turkey and was not in keeping with the spirit of the Helsinki
conclusions, the need for Turkey to implement the necessary reforms to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria was
reiterated during the lunch. It should be noted that Mr Akim Birdal has since been released.

6.
At meetings of the EC-Turkey Association Council, the EU delegation is led by the President of the
Council and the Turkish delegation by the Turkish Foreign Minister. The Member of the European
Commission responsible for enlargement is also present.

(2001/C 113 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1568/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 May 2000)

Subject: Government aid for audiovisual productions

The Commission wants to confine government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget.
This proposal is the first occasion that the Commission has applied the competition rules in full in the area
of cultural policy.

C 113 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

This action will have a pernicious effect on audiovisual initiatives in small and medium-sized Member
States and cultural areas. They have more limited sources of finance than the large Member States and
cultural areas. Moreover, a relative yardstick (in this case the 50 % rule), as used by the Commission, gives
a distorted picture of the amounts actually invested.

Does the Commission plan to limit government aid for audiovisual productions to half the total

1.
budget? If so, why?

Does the Commission acknowledge that this proposal is the first occasion that it has applied the
2.
competition rules in full in the area of cultural policy? If no, how then should limiting government aid for
audiovisual productions to half the total budget be interpreted?

In the Commission(cid:146)s opinion, can limiting government aid for audiovisual productions to half the
3.
total budget be reconciled with its objective of supporting the development of small and medium-sized
Member States and cultural areas? If so, in what way does the Commission think that limiting government
aid for audiovisual productions to half the total budget will contribute to developing small and medium-
sized Member states and cultural areas?

4.
Is the Commission prepared to drop its proposal to limit government aid for audiovisual productions
to half the total budget in view of the detrimental effect this will have on audiovisual initiatives in small
and medium-sized Member states and cultural areas? If not, why not, and what are the Commission(cid:146)s
reasons for persisting with the proposal?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2000)

The Commission has applied the same rules and principles to state aid for films in all its recent
1.
decisions since the decision of 29 July 1998 approving the French system of support for film production
(N 3/98), namely:

(cid:129) certain guarantees must by given by the Member State in order to ensure that films have a cultural
impact, thereby excluding commercial productions, such as audiovisual advertising, which do not
make a cultural contribution;

(cid:129) aid intensity must be limited to 50 %, except in the case of esoteric low budget films, with a view to
initiatives inherent in a market economy and avoiding a bidding

stimulating normal commercial
contest between Member States;

(cid:129) aid supplements for certain specific activities must not be allowed, to ensure that the aid has a neutral

incentive effect; and

(cid:129) the producer must be free to spend at least 20 % of the film budget in other Member States, which
encourages exchanges within the Union; in other words, the full aid must still be available even if only
80 % of the budget is spent within the Member State that awards the aid.

Application of these principles enables the systems notified to the Commission to be covered by the
exemption provided for in Article 87(3)(d) (formerly Article 92) of the EC Treaty.

This is not the first time that competition rules have been applied in the area of cultural policy. The
2.
Commission had already applied these rules to aid to culture before incorporation into the Treaty of the
relevant exemption (Article 87(3)(d)). In order to be able to benefit from this exemption, the aid in
question must be used for specific cultural products, e.g. film production. Otherwise it will fall under the
normal industrial aid header. Aid to industry that is not destined for specific cultural products falls under
the general state aid rules and frameworks, including the one for small and medium-sized enterprises.

3.
The Commission considers the fostering of culture one of its most important objectives. Although
the Treaty articles relating to state aid cannot be invoked for that purpose, the Commission certainly takes
that objective into account when it applies these rules.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/29

By increasing competition, the application of the rules relating to state aid is certainly very valuable, in
particular for the small and average-sized Member States, given that it helps create a Community cultural
area without frontiers by combating the fragmentation and compartmentalisation of the film production
market.

4.
In the meantime the Commission has applied the principles set out in its decision on the French
support system for film production to aid schemes in Germany (federal system), Ireland, the Netherlands
and Sweden. During the coming months, the Commission will, in close cooperation with the Member
States in question, apply the same principles to aid schemes in force in Belgium, Germany (the L(cid:228)nder),
Spain, Italy, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom.

(2001/C 113 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1569/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2000)

Subject: Genetically modified maize

One fifth of the maize planted in the US last year was genetically primed to produce a natural insecticide,
the aim being to (cid:145)protect(cid:146) the maize from caterpillars and other insects.

Research carried out by biologists at New York University (Nature, 12/99) shows that the poison is also
found in the maize pollen and in the soil. It remains active for 25 days underground, probably because it
is protected from biodegradation as a result of bonding to soil particles. Because the study was carried out
in a greenhouse, the researchers cannot determine what the effect of the poison is on the total biotope in,
and in the vicinity of, a genuine maize field.

1.
Is the Commission aware of the adverse spill-over effects of the (cid:145)natural(cid:146) poison produced by
genetically modified maize? If so, what action has the Commission taken to prevent these adverse effects?

2. Will the Commission obtain information on, and/or conduct research into, the adverse spill-over
effects of the (cid:145)natural(cid:146) poison produced by genetically modified maize? If not, why not, given the risks to
the total biotope in, and in the vicinity of, maize fields?

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

(12 July 2000)

Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 concerns the deliberate release into the environment of
genetically modified organisms (1) (GMOs). Part B of the Directive sets out the authorisation procedure for
experimental releases of GMOs, and Part C regulates the placing on the market of GMOs.

A consent under both parts of this Directive is only granted after a comprehensive risk assessment has
been carried out to evaluate the risks that the GMO may pose to human health and the environment.

Currently there are two genetically modified maize varieties expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin
conferring insect tolerance that have been given consent for the placing on the market in the Community.
Both varieties underwent a comprehensive environmental risk evaluation before they were given consent
by the Member State, where the application had first been notified. These assessments included the
consultation of independent scientific committees set up by the Commission, with favourable opinions
published in December 1996 and February 1998 and a re-assessment published in September 1999.