WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/00 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Failure by Spain to comply with Article 12(5) of the Television without frontiers Directive (advertising during children's programmes).
Date: 2000-07-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, Spain, advertising, child protection, infringement of EU law, television

C 151 E/10

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

In the absence of harmonised Community legislation, direct
competence of the Member States.

taxation falls in principle under the

According to the information available in the Commission, the Erasmus grants are exempted from income
taxation in all the countries participating in Erasmus. The Honourable Member(cid:146)s question refers however
specifically to local taxation.

There is not as such any local income tax in France. It is possible that the (cid:145)local taxation(cid:146) mentioned by the
Honourable Member in the question refers to taxes, dues or other fees charged by a town to residents for
public services. Exchange students will not necessary be exempted from such duties. Nor would such duties
normally be covered by double taxation conventions concluded between Member States.

(2001/C 151 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2548/00

by Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(28 July 2000)

Subject: Failure by Spain to comply with Article 12(5) of the (cid:145)Television without frontiers(cid:146) Directive

(advertising during children(cid:146)s programmes)

Article 12(5) of Directive 97/36/EC (1) (amending Directive 89/552/EEC (2)), better known as the (cid:145)Television
without frontiers(cid:146) Directive, stipulates that (cid:145)children(cid:146)s programmes, when their scheduled duration is less
than thirty minutes, shall not be interrupted by advertising or by teleshopping(cid:146). Nevertheless, as was
pointed out in Written Question E-2864/99 (3), Spanish television stations are broadcasting more than the
permitted number of advertisements during the time slot for children(cid:146)s programmes, while 5 % of those
advertisements fail to comply with existing legislation.
In response to this and other complaints by
consumers(cid:146) associations, the Commission has opened infringement proceedings against Spain for failure to
comply with the provisions on advertising laid down in the (cid:145)Television without frontiers(cid:146) Directive.

The Advertising Education Forum (AEF), the operational arm of the World Federation of Advertisers,
recently expressed concern at the possible tightening of Community legislation on advertising during
children(cid:146)s programmes and said it would oppose any moves in that direction by the forthcoming Swedish
Presidency of the EU. Since 1991 there has been a law in Sweden prohibiting advertising before, during
and after children(cid:146)s programmes, while countries such as Austria and Belgium have banned advertising
from children(cid:146)s programmes for some time, and Greece has outlawed television advertising of toys.

Is the Commission examining whether Spanish broadcasting companies are complying with Community
rules on advertising, particularly Article 12(5) of the (cid:145)Television without frontiers(cid:146) Directive?

With reference to that Directive(cid:146)s avowed aim of protecting minors, will the Commission propose that the
banning and restricting of advertising during children(cid:146)s programmes be extended, drawing on the
successful experiences of countries such as Sweden, Belgium, Austria and Greece?

What progress has been made with the infringement proceedings brought against Spain for failure to
comply with Directive 97/36/EC?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
(2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.
(3) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 213.

22.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 151 E/11

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

As already indicated in the reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question E-2864/99 (1), infringe-
ment proceedings in accordance with Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty have been brought
against Spain for its failure to comply with the rules on advertising set out in the (cid:145)Television without
Frontiers(cid:146) Directive (Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 June 1997).

Moreover, a study is currently being carried out on the impact of television advertising and teleshopping
on minors. On the basis of the results of this study and other factors, the Commission will propose the
most appropriate measures where necessary.

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000.

(2001/C 151 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Support for drug addicts living on the street to persuade them to seek treatment

In many European countries drug addicts can been seen living on the street in company with one or more
dogs. The reason why these homeless drug addicts have dogs can apparently be traced back to the law on
animal protection. I have heard that in some Member States that law stipulates that the authorities must
look after and seek a home for ownerless dogs. This in turn reduces the likelihood of the authorities
intervening in the lives of drug addicts living on the street, for example in order to persuade them to seek
treatment, since the outcome would be that dozens of neglected, ownerless dogs would be left on the
street and, pursuant to the law on animal protection, would have to be cared for by the authorities.

Is this correct? If so, what steps does the Commission plan to take in order to ensure that the law on
animal protection does not preclude the provision of support for drug addicts to persuade them to seek
treatment? If the law on animal protection does not in itself rule out the provision of such support, are
there practical obstacles to efforts to resolve the problems of the homeless?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 October 2000)

As the Honourable Member has noticed, some homeless drug addicts have dogs. Dogs may be kept for
security reasons or for company.

The Commission is unaware of any cases where the law on animal protection has prevented drug addicts
from seeking treatment or reduced the likelihood of the authorities to intervene in the lives of drug addicts
living on the street. Even though caring for the addict(cid:146)s pets while in treatment may be problematic in
some cases, this has not been reported as an obstacle for seeking or receiving treatment or other support
in any Member State.