WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/00 by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Renewable energy sources and hydroelectric power.
Date: 2000-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU industrial policy, electrical energy, hydraulic energy, renewable energy

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/139

The Commission also recalls that film producers have the option of coding new releases according to six
geographical regions, of which the European Economic Area (EEA) constitutes one. Thus, a DVD movie
released in one Member State could be played in another Member State, a feature enhanced by the
multiple-language capacity of DVDs. Accordingly, the regional coding does not restrict trade between
Member States. However, the regional coding might discourage imports into the EEA of DVD discs
released in one of the other regions and thereby have an effect on trade.

In this context, the antitrust rules only offer limited possibilities for imposing restrictions on the use of
intellectual property rights against imports or parallel imports.

Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty requires the existence of an agreement or concerted practice.
However, in the present case, the film producers decide unilaterally whether or not to regionally encode a
title.

Article 82 (ex Article 86) of the EC Treaty requires abuse of a dominant position. Film production
companies do not enjoy a dominant position in the meaning of Article 82 merely because they are in a
position to prevent third parties from putting into circulation products that infringe upon their rights. At
this stage, there are no other indications that any of the film production companies would enjoy a
dominant position on the relevant market of feature films.

The Honourable Member suggests that the (cid:145)back catalogue(cid:146) of films (films already released) should not be
regional encoded. The Commission would like to point out that regional coding on back catalogue of films
amounts to enforce film production companies(cid:146) rights under copyright. Only under limited and excep-
tional circumstances, e.g. if a dominant film producer were to engage in abusive pricing practices, could
the Commission intervene under the competition rules (2).

Accordingly, as stated in its previous reply (1), the Commission has already investigated these issues (in an
ex-officio proceeding opened in 1996) and has not found any behaviour infringing Article 81 or 82 of the
EC Treaty. In the absence of any new information enabling the Commission to change its view, the
Commission currently has no intention to investigate the matter further.

(1) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001.
(2) See, inter alia, the judgement of 16 December 1999 in Case T-198/98 Micro Leader Business v. Commission, not

yet published.

(2001/C 103 E/155)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2378/00

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallstr(cid:246)m (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Renewable energy sources and hydroelectric power

(13 July 2000)

According to the recent report by energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio, the Commission does not
intend, in its new proposal for an energy directive, to grant hydroelectric power the status of a renewable
source of energy. The proposed directive also suggests that Finland should increase its electricity
production by 10 % by 2010 by burning wood. This is a completely impossible objective. According to
the calculations of the Finnish trade and industry ministry, Finland would need to invest some FIM 12 to
15 billion in wood-burning power stations in order for the country to use the required 10 million m3 of
wood in energy production. The burning of wood would also cause a serious shortage of raw materials in
the wood processing industry.

In the light of the above, why does the Commission not want to grant naturally flowing water the status of
a renewable energy source? On what calculations does the Commission base its opinion concerning the
advisability of a radical increase in wood burning? Does the Commission consider this objective sensible in
the light of the environmental consequences of burning wood?

C 103 E/140

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The proposal for a directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the promotion of electricity from
renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market (1) to which the Honourable Member refers
reflects the Commission(cid:146)s traditional position on the role of hydro power. This type of energy is clearly a
renewable energy source, but electricity produced from large hydroelectric installations (i.e. with a capacity
above 10 megawatt (MW)) is in general competitive and does not need particular public support. Member
States thus can make allowance for electricity produced from large hydroelectric installations for achieving
their national target in consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources as indicated in
the annex to the proposal. The targets for consumption contained in the annex are not binding but
indicative and the Commission(cid:146)s proposal leaves it to Member States to promote (cid:129) within the limit of the
definition in Article 2(1) (cid:129) the types of renewable energy sources that are best suited to their particular
circumstances. Consequently, it does not follow from the proposal for a directive that Finland in any way
would have to substitute electricity production from hydroelectric installations with a production based on
the burning of wood.

All
forms of hydropower are furthermore included in the provisions on certification of origin, as
consumers should have the right to know if their electricity is produced from renewable sources of
energy. However, in the case of hydroelectric installations, guarantee certificates have to specify whether
their capacity lies above or under 10 MW.

Also, large hydroelectric installations do not benefit from the more technical provisions of the proposal,
e.g. priority access to the grid, as this is not needed to assure economic viability on the market. In
conclusion it may be said that the Commission with its policy promoting renewable energy sources tries to
focus public support to the types of renewable energy sources where it is most needed and justified in
economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.

(2001/C 103 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/00

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Subject: Community programmes concerning education, vocational training and youth

I regularly receive visitors aged from 13 to 18. As well as giving a presentation on the daily activities of an
MEP, I speak to them about the numerous Community programmes in the areas of education, vocational
training and youth.

This reveals that what should be merely a reminder or additional
completely new to them.

information is in fact, very often,

This state of affairs is found not only in France but also in countries such as Germany.

How does the Commission explain the fact that this information has not got through to schools?

What solutions does the Commission recommend as a remedy for this?