WRITTEN QUESTION P-3104/00 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Investor-compensation scheme.
Date: 2000-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, Greece, investment aid, investment loan, investment protection, national implementing measure

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/243

The general aim of the Commission when presenting statistical data on education is to illustrate the
national situation and comparisons between countries. In the report, all tables clearly indicate whether data
refers to the overall situation in Belgium or to the communities separately. Therefore, the Commission is
of the opinion that the data in the report does not present (cid:145)a distorted or unfair picture(cid:146) of the situation in
Belgium.

(1) OJ C 89 E, 20.3.2001.

(2001/C 113 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3104/00

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Investor-compensation scheme

Under Directive 97/9/EC (1) each Member State is obliged to ensure that within its territory one or more
investor-compensation schemes is introduced and officially recognised. Under this scheme, if the compe-
tent or judicial authority considers that an investment firm is unable to meet its obligations to its investors
compensation of not less than EUR 20 000 per investor is set. It should be noted that no authorised
investment firm may carry on investment business unless it belongs to such a scheme and that the
Member States must ensure that investment firms provide their investors with the necessary information
on the existence and operation of an investor-compensation scheme.

Could the Commission give information on:

1.

the extent to which this directive is being applied in Greece,

2. whether the competent Greek authorities have communicated to the Commission the text of the main

provisions of national law which they have adopted with regard to the above directive,

3. whether the authorities ensure that Greek investors are aware of the existence and operation of the

compensation scheme, and

4. why the Commission has not submitted a report to Parliament and the Council on the application of
the directive, as laid down by Article 14 thereof, and which Member States have not notified details of
the implementation of the directive?

(1) OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 22.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

All Member States have notified national measures transposing Directive 97/9/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-compensation schemes.

Greece has implemented Directive 97/9/EC through Law 2533/1997. The legal status of the Greek scheme
is that of a legal person under private law, subject to the supervision of the capital market commission.
The actions of the scheme and the performance of its statutory duties are therefore subject to challenge
under Greek private law.

The annex to the Commission report on the application of the export prohibition clause (Article 7(1))
provides a synthetic view of the implementation of Directive 97/9/EC on investor compensation schemes
in the European economic area (EEA) states. This provides a detailed indication of the situation as it
prevailed at the end of 1999. This extensive presentation is nevertheless incomplete as a result of the lack
of qualitative experience with the practical operation of the Directive and the national schemes in the short
period since its entry into force (September 1998).

C 113 E/244

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

This situation has implied in particular that neither the Commission nor the Member States have as yet
identified any circumstances relating to the operation of the Directive which call
for revision. The
Commission will keep this situation under review.

This report provides some summary information on how the Greek authorities have implemented
Directive 97/9/EC and the main features of the scheme as regards identity of the scheme (Athens Stock
Exchange Members(cid:146) Guarantee Fund), level of cover (20 000 € in accordance with Article 4), coverage of
credit institutions, form of contributions from participating firms, and types of service which are exempted
from the scheme in accordance with annex 1 of the Directive.

(2001/C 113 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3107/00

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(27 September 2000)

Subject: Human rights and democracy in Nigeria

Would the Commission clarify how support for human rights and democracy in Nigeria will be given
without access to the previous budget line which was in place for Nigeria?

Will levels of funding be maintained and will commitment for creating a Human Rights Foundation, such
as the EC has supported in South Africa, be continued?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2000)

The promotion of human rights and democracy in Nigeria is continuing under budget heading B7-7020
(human rights and democracy in developing countries including the ACP), as is the case for all other ACP
countries except southern Africa, which comes under heading 7021. These appropriations are intended to
support an incentive-based approach. Measures to promote human rights and democracy can also be
financed from the European Development Fund, and this is done in other countries. Three projects worth
a total of € 1,7 million are in the pipeline for Nigeria under heading B7-7020 of the budget for 2000, the
intended beneficiaries being civil society and the prison system. A fourth project worth € 310 000 under
budget heading B7-7020A will provide technical assistance.

The Commission is aware of Nigeria(cid:146)s political and geographical significance but feels that the quality of
human rights projects selected for that country needs to be enhanced, among other things by extending
and strengthening technical assistance in the field. The volume of aid depends on the quality of the
projects submitted for financing, and the quality of the projects being put forward for Nigeria either
spontaneously or as a result of the call for proposals issued in June last year has been disappointing.

The Commission did set up a Human Rights Foundation in South Africa in 1996 but
feels the
circumstances in that case were different. The foundation itself has changed; it is now a South African
NGO responsible for implementing the Community(cid:146)s human rights programme in South Africa but is also
eligible for funds from Member States and local bodies and no longer receives technical assistance from the
Commission.

In line with Parliament(cid:146)s recommendations the Commission took a decision on 16 May to press ahead
with the dismantling of technical assistance offices (TAOs) involved in external relations programmes. This
important step in reforming the management of external aid is not really consistent with the creation of a
new human rights foundation in Nigeria.