WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/00 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Development of a studio theme park in Mainz.
Date: 2000-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, competence of the Member States, control of State aid, intra-EU trade, leisure park, public service, television

C 174 E/24

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that once all national remedies against the act in
question have been exhausted, it is possible to bring a complaint before the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg.

(2001/C 174 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3204/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Civil liberties in Saudi Arabia

Further to reports of human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, how has the Council addressed the issue of civil
liberties during multilateral talks with this country?

Reply

(8 March 2001)

The EU is encouraging Saudi Arabia and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to act to
improve civil liberties and the human rights situation in their countries and to cooperate with the UN and
international human rights organisations. The issue of human rights is always raised by the EU in its twice-
the
yearly Ministerial meetings with the GCC, as well as at other meetings.
Cooperation Agreement between the Community and the GCC (1), the EU has (cid:129) so far unsuccessfully (cid:129)
proposed the establishment of a human rights dialogue at all levels.

In the framework of

A negotiating mandate with a view to the conclusion of a free trade agreement between the Community
and the GCC was drawn up in 1991. This mandate is currently being updated. A Commission proposal to
that effect is expected in a few weeks. In accordance with the policy followed by the EU as regards human
rights in the context of its agreements with third countries, human rights would constitute an essential
element in any agreement of that type.

(1) OJ L 54, 25.2.1989, p. 1.

(2001/C 174 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3218/00

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Development of a studio theme park in Mainz

(17 October 2000)

The ZDF is planning to develop a studio theme park in Mainz, Germany. The theme park is to provide
purely commercial leisure facilities, not unlike attractions on offer in other leisure parks, with which it will
therefore be in direct competition.

In this context the following questions are asked:

1. What view does the Commission take of the fact that the ZDF studio theme park is a purely
commercial theme park whose activities are not covered by the public-service broadcasting remit,
contrary to stipulations of the German Monopolies Commission(cid:146)s thirteenth Biennial Report 1998/
1999 drawn up in accordance with Section 44, paragraph 1, sentence 1, of the GWB (Act against
Restraints of Competition) (p. 446)?

2. What view does the Commission take of the German Monopolies Commission(cid:146)s recommendation that

these kinds of activities should not be pursued by public institutions such as the ZDF?

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/25

3. Does the Commission consider that the financing of the studio theme park with funds generated from

public fees constitutes unauthorised financial aid under Article 87(1) of the EEC Treaty?

4. What does the Commission understand by the (cid:145)public-service broadcasting remit(cid:146)?

5. How does the Commission intend to monitor, in accordance with the public-service broadcasting
remit,
funding
supervision system involving a body whose task is to establish the financial needs of broadcasting
corporations?

the ZDF studio theme park under the current

the operation and utilisation of

6. How will the Commission ensure that, with a view to transparent public accounting, no funds
generating from public fees will be used as state aid for the planning, development and utilisation of
the ZDF studio theme park?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

1. and 2.
The Commission has not reached any conclusion regarding the planned development of a
studio theme park by Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (the ZDF). Until now the Commission has dealt only
with complaints received regarding the ZDF plan. It originally informed the applicants that the information
at its disposal did not indicate that state aid would be used to develop the studio theme park. The
applicants have since supplied further information, which is currently being examined.

3. and 5.
The Commission has not found that the studio theme park is being financed with funds from
public licence fees. Consequently, it has not concluded that the financing is in breach of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty. For this reason there is no cause to consider monitoring the operation or utilisation of the
studio theme park.

The definition of (cid:145)public-service broadcasting remit(cid:146) is a matter for the Member States, not for the

4.
Commission.

6.
In principle, Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on
the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings (1) also applies to
the broadcasting sector. However, the requirement to keep separate accounts applies solely where a
company conducts different activities and not in the case where activities are conducted by different legal
persons.

Where it is necessary to examine a complaint concerning the infringement of state aid rules, it is the
Commission(cid:146)s practice to request information from the Member State concerned. There is normally no
reason to doubt the accuracy of this information.

(1) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3221/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco directive derogation

The common position on the EU Directive on Tobacco will ban the manufacture in and export from the
EU of cigarettes of above 10 mg of tar from 1 January 2004 in 14 out of the 15 Member States. It will,
however, include a derogation for Greece that will allow manufacture, distribution and export of cigarettes
above this level until 2007. Is this not a clear breach of single market and competition legislation which
will discriminate against other EU manufacturers, particularly in the UK, who would be affected by a
similar social economic impact?